1

Congratulations on a relevant, useful post. No political spite, no angels dancing on the head of a pin. Kudos!

2

Joe,

What a wonderful sentiment. I have a plan to end world hunger too.

First

Public awareness has to grow, and there has to be public agreement that it is time to end world hunger once and for all. This public commitment must be communicated to politicians.

Second

Money needs to be spent to eradicate world hunger, but not nearly as much as you might think. For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of world hunger in the world could be dramatically reduced.

finally

Governments must enforce their own feed the hungry laws. To make this happen every country has to understand that they must take action or face serious pressure. We all know about the United Nations weapons inspectors, who enforce the Conventions against Weapons of Mass Destruction, but where are the United Nations World Hunger Inspectors? When the same effort is put behind searching out and ending World Hunger, there will be rapid change.

I also have an idea to end AIDS.

First

Public awareness has to grow, and there has to be public agreement that it is time to end AIDS once and for all. This public commitment must be communicated to politicians.

Second

Money needs to be spent to eradicate AIDS, but not nearly as much as you might think. For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of AIDS patients in the world could be dramatically reduced.

Finally

Governments must enforce their own AIDS laws. To make this happen every country has to understand that they must take action or face serious pressure. We all know about the United Nations weapons inspectors, who enforce the Conventions against Weapons of Mass Destruction, but where are the United Nations AIDS Inspectors? When the same effort is put behind searching out and ending AIDS, there will be rapid change.

If we just follow these three simple steps, we could end all the problems in the world and Christopher Reeve will get up and walk again.

3

Thanks for doing this. If there was ever need to prove the fallen nature of humans, the existence of slavery in the 21st century proves it.

4

Even more important (as I see it) ...

Where is the total outrage?

5

I agree with Collin, where is the outrage?

I am not sure what is wrong with Erik and Lisa. There is a big difference between issues of outrage (lack of), money, ignorance and apathy and those of biomedical issues.

Just a little funny. We were going through our Christmas decorations when suddenly my 3 year old girl proclaims, "I found Jesus". I said to my wife, "Wow, and she is only 3".

6

Great post! I found this bit of information about the US.
In 2002, the US Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate[4] that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation.[5]. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "Here and abroad, the victims of trafficking toil under inhuman conditions -- in brothels, sweatshops, fields and even in private homes."[6]

7

For millions of enslaved people around the world, this new abolitionist movement has come none too soon, just like President Bush recently noted, “Our nation is determined to fight and end this modern form of slavery.”

Bolly News

8

Eric and Lisa surely has a better strategy in fighting this problem for us? As it is, all I see is more cynicism to justify our inaction.

9

Eric & Lisa: You're right...this post was trite because you have the 106 reason that Jesus is returning in 2006.

Collin: More Christians are outraged that Clay Aiken might be gay than millions of people being stripped of their humanity for a measly, illegal profit. There's only so much outrage to go around, and that's where we put our priorities. Get with the program

Joe: All kidding aside, this was the most important thing you've ever written. Please continue to expose your large audience to this in additional posts.

10

Joe -- I agree with Justin. What you've written is hugely important. The apostle John taught us that an essential element of worshiping God is loving our brothers, and reducing slavery would be a great way to do that.

Of the three things that need to happen, number two is: "Money needs to be spent to eradicate slavery, but not nearly as much as you might think. For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of slavery in the world could be dramatically reduced." Nowhere did I see what the author had in mind. Is there a plan?

Slavery is indeed worthy of outrage. And the outrage needs to be focused on a solution, and not converted into another way to bash the US.

11

Good post - a few things to add:

First, keep watch for Amazing Grace, a movie about William Wilberforce and the abolition movement in England. It should be a good motivator for evangelicals to get involved in the issue.

Second, the state dept. report comes out each year:
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/

Third, check out my organization's website (www.dalitnetwork.org) for info on the largest cause of slavery (in terms of numbers): caste. Dalits (untouchables) are trafficked in massive numbers. The website has more.

thanks,

Benjamin Marsh
Social Justice Coordinator
Dalit Freedom Network

12

Obviously an extremely important issue, and kudos to Joe for highlighting it. One more reason for the US to have a robust world presence is to be able to more effectively combat this scourge.

On a side note, to those who are sniping at Joe, even on this issue, consider this: is this an important issue? Do you care about it? OUGHT folks to care about it, and, if so, WHY? I know why I care, and I think I know why Joe cares; why do you care? It's the same issue Wilberforce et al faced. Every human society on earth before Wilberforce in the 1800's had slavery, open, above-board, legal. No other human society except those founded on a Christian worldview has fought it. Right now, I'd venture to say that a substantial chunk, if not the majority, of trafficking occurs in countries that are majority Muslim. One more reason to fight the global war against Islam.

13

An average slave in the American South in 1850 cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today's money; today a slave costs an average of $90.

At $40,000, you have a long-term capital investment.
At $90, you have a use-once-throw-away disposable item.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, British and American evangelicals were the leaders of the abolition movement.

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, British and American evangelicals didn't have Pre-Trib Rapture, Darby/Scofield End Time Prophecy charts, and Left Behind Fever. When Christ is coming back tomorrow at the latest and It's All Gonna Burn, why bother with anything except personal holiness/pietism and "soul winning"?

It’s time that modern-day evangelicals once again take our place in the struggle against slavery. In order to do that...

Tear up your End Time Prophecy charts & Young Earth Creation Science books and spend some time other than being personally Holy Holy Holy, denouncing everything outside of your own personal holiness, and singing "Twinkle twinkle coming Christ, Beam me up to Paradise."

Right now, I'd venture to say that a substantial chunk, if not the majority, of trafficking occurs in countries that are majority Muslim.

Because the Koran regulates slavery (which was universal at the time), so Islamic mullahs claim Slavery Is Commanded By God.

14

In the 18th and 19th centuries, British and American evangelicals were the leaders of the abolition movement. It’s time that modern-day evangelicals once again take our place in the struggle against slavery. In order to do that, however, we must become better informed, we must lobby our government to act, and we must raise up leaders who will become the Harriet Tubmans and William Wilberforces of the twenty-first century. We must take up the task of leading the next great abolition movement.

It won't work Joe. Slavery as an issue just doesn't bring the money into the political coffers like gay marriage and abortion do.

And perhaps I'm missing something, but it does not seem to be a topic of much interest to the Family Research Council. At least its not on its Policy Areas webpage.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=RESEARCH

I guess their slogan is Defending Family, Faith, and "freedom". (small "f" for small commitment)

15

I think the ERIC&LISA point is this,
that the plan Joe linked to (National Geographic?) is so generic as to be useless. And the spoof examples of AIDS and hunger are particularly good ones in that I have heard very similar plans discussed for 20 years and both still exist. Pick any problem in the world: to solve, 1. raise awareness, 2. raise money 3. have governments take action. Rinse and repeat. But let's leave the messy details to someone else and feel good about the quality ideas we produce!

What might be a better way to tackle any problem related to human suffering?

1. Don't just talk about raising awareness - do something about it. Link to an online petition for the US government to take action on the issue, or post a printable form letter to send to your congressman. Maybe there are some human-rights groups we should be aware of that are spotlighting this problem?

2. Don't make vague references to spending money - people who want money almost always fib about how much they need becuase it's hard to turn off the spigot once it's on. Has anyone made an estimate of the money needed? How would it be spent? Could the money be focused on ne part of the problem at a time (like cargo inspections, tracking kidnapped people, or legal funds for extraditing slavers)? Is there any group that accepts donations to fund anti-slavery activity? A link or donation information would be helpful.

3. Don't just tell us government needs to enforce its own laws - that certainly isn't working in the illegal immigration arena in the US or the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in Iran. What laws are on the books in the US to stop human trafficking here? Why aren't laws being enforced, here or elsewhere? Is there a list of countries that ignore anti-slavery laws and corporations that do business there? Is anyone organizing a boycott of companies that manufacture goods in countries that support slavery?

If Joe or anyone else in the comments section really wants to fight slavery, you need to motivate apathetic lazy people like myself. Telling me a problem can be fixed with "raised awareness, more money, and government involvment" sounds like every other social program of the last 50 years that hasn't eradicated (poverty,illiteracy,hunger,AIDS,voter fraud).

16

Good point, Alexander, and good advice. The reason Eric and Lisa received such flak was because the post was purely negative without a helpful follow up like you outlined. Which seemed to imply that being apathetic and doing nothing was somehow superior to at least trying.

17

Patrick, rather than just poopooing the FRC (who certainly is not unique in ignoring this widely ignored outrage), perhaps we should all be grateful that they hired Joe to work there to help guide their vision, and expect good things to come.

18

Doc, You would bet wronge about the Islamofacsists. Look it up.

19

I also agree, Alexander. Let me add to your list. How about: "adopt" one or more children through a ministry like Compassion to make sure his or her needs for food, shelter, education, and spiritual guidance are met. I don't have statistics but I have to believe that a sponsored child is going to have a lot less chance of falling into slavery.

Patrick, FRC has commented on human trafficking both here and abroad. I’m sure Joe will set you straight, but in a short search of their site I was able to find a number of articles on the topic. Anyway, since you are posting this kind of critique, maybe you’d like to share what anti-human-trafficking efforts you are currently involved in?

20

I agree, It’s time that modern-day evangelicals once again take our place in the struggle against slavery.

Also, it's about time modern-day evangelicals take up the struggle against our country's policy of never-ending war. We could start pushing for the ending the our occuption of Iraq and ending the so-called "war on terror". If we truly believe in alleviating needless suffering and death, we'll start doing this.

John

21

Eric and Lisa

"Money needs to be spent to eradicate world hunger, but not nearly as much as you might think. For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of world hunger in the world could be dramatically reduced."

No doubt this already occurs to an unknown extent. Additional spending would increase the positive effects.

"Governments must enforce their own feed the hungry laws. To make this happen every country has to understand that they must take action or face serious pressure. We all know about the United Nations weapons inspectors, who enforce the Conventions against Weapons of Mass Destruction, but where are the United Nations World Hunger Inspectors? When the same effort is put behind searching out and ending World Hunger, there will be rapid change."

Such laws do not exist, as I am sure you know. Slavery is illegal however and better law enforcement will in all liklehood have some positive effect.

"I also have an idea to end AIDS.

First

"Public awareness has to grow, and there has to be public agreement that it is time to end AIDS once and for all. This public commitment must be communicated to politicians."

Who (but you guys) would argue against the very real success that PR campaigns have had in curbing the spread of AIDS in the developed world. In the developing world this is on-going.

Second

"Money needs to be spent to eradicate AIDS, but not nearly as much as you might think. For the price of a bomber or a battleship, the amount of AIDS patients in the world could be dramatically reduced."

Money has already been spent, and has had dramatic positive effects as I am sure you would be forced to acknowledge.

Finally

"Governments must enforce their own AIDS laws. To make this happen every country has to understand that they must take action or face serious pressure. We all know about the United Nations weapons inspectors, who enforce the Conventions against Weapons of Mass Destruction, but where are the United Nations AIDS Inspectors? When the same effort is put behind searching out and ending AIDS, there will be rapid change."

To my knowledge there are no such laws nor would they seem practical.

Your post intended to come off as some kind of "cynic-chic" pose does not hold up to the most briefest of scrutinies. As well unlike others I will take it further and state that not only is it cynical it is wrong. The importance of Joe's post is that it prescribes remedies that have been proven effective in other health and social ills to a problem that currently draws little attention or resources.

Perhaps you should adopt a new EO outlook or motto. "read before you post" Even the internet has limits for the storage of meaningless dreck.

22

We could start pushing for the ending the our occuption of Iraq and ending the so-called "war on terror". If we truly believe in alleviating needless suffering and death, we'll start doing this.

This view that the US (or at least Bush and the Christians) is responsible for all the evil in the world is irresponsible, dangerous, and unfortunately all too common. One may as well argue that the way to stop fires is disband all the fire departments.

23

Good post. Thanks for writing something of real relevance for us to use as a springboard for action.

24

ucfengr writes:

This view that the US (or at least Bush and the Christians) is responsible for all the evil in the world is irresponsible, dangerous, and unfortunately all too common. One may as well argue that the way to stop fires is disband all the fire departments.

Ucfengr,

Labeling me a member of the stereotypical "hate america first" crowd, does not prove anything except you refuse to see the evil that is currently being done in our name by our government.

If you can't see that the occupation of Iraq and the resulting deaths, injuries, and disruption of families along with the torture and "rendition" of detainees is evil, I guess there is really nothing I can do to convince you.

FYI, I am a christian.

John

25

Joe the fact that u would suggest the U.N lead theway shows how lost u become on this one. Perhaps u should ask the head of the Human Rights Committee to help you. I thought only liberals spoke nice sounding words that were diasters everytime they were implemented.

26

Labeling me a member of the stereotypical "hate america first" crowd, does not prove anything except you refuse to see the evil that is currently being done in our name by our government.

And you completely ignore the evil that is not being done in our name, i.e. terrorists, and the evil that would occur if we were to leave, i.e. a Middle Eastern "Killing Fields" and an Iraq dominated by Iran. The terrorists in Iraq aren't just blowing up US soldiers, they are also blowing up Iranian police stations, polling places, and schools.

If you can't see that the occupation of Iraq and the resulting deaths, injuries, and disruption of families along with the torture and "rendition" of detainees is evil, I guess there is really nothing I can do to convince you.

What about the deaths, injuries, and disruption of families that occurred under Saddam and his desire to obtain (and we can only assume use) nuclear and chemical weapons? Apparently, in your world the police officer who uses violence to stop a rapist is worse than the rapist.

FYI, I am a christian.

I would prefer a Hindu who understands the nature of evil and what is required to stop it to a fuzzy headed Christian who will tolerate evil as long as he doesn't have to dirty his hands and his sense of moral superiority to stop it.

27

Joe,

Great topic. This post was a great first step (although I think you have touched on this before). Please keep on this topic and research what we can do on an individual level.

28

Hey, ucfengr, whatever...I'm glad you're not God. There are many things I could say in response to you, but I don't see the point in doing so.

I will say this. I am a born again christian who voted for Bush in 2000 and intially supported the war in Iraq, however after no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found, I decided to look into the matter further and changed my mind. The war in Iraq is an pre-emptive act of naked agression and is in no way a "just war".

ucfengr, I'm sure you could write many paragraphs telling me why I am wrong. Go Ahead. I'm just getting my viewpoint out.

I encourage all the readers of this blog to do some research into the build up to the war in Iraq. Start off small-try to find out about the "project for the new american century" or PNAC, and try to looking into why our president calls himself a "unitary executive" in many of his numerous "signing statement". Then you might ask yourself-what exactly is a "war on terror"...when will it end...how will you know it's over.

Just expressing my viewpoint-I don't care what you call me.

John

29

whatever...I'm glad you're not God. There are many things I could say in response to you, but I don't see the point in doing so.

Lot's of folks, including me are glad I'm not God. Rather thankless job if you ask me.

There are many things I could say in response to you, but I don't see the point in doing so.

Yet another thing to be thankful for.

I will say this. I am a born again christian who voted for Bush in 2000 and intially supported the war in Iraq,

Ahh, the obligatory bona fides. You would think you folks could come up with something different after 5 years.

however after no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found,

Except of course WMDs were found and Saddam also retained the ability to restart his nuke programs pretty quickly after the sanctions were lifted, which would have happened. If you had been reading the New York Times recently you would have found that Saddam could have had a nuke as soon as 2 years after the sanctions were lifted. Also Saddam had been violating the terms of the Desert Storm ceasefire for 10 years by targeting our aircraft enforcing the "no fly zone" and actively supporting terrorists. Saddam brought this on himself and his people, he gambled with their lives and lost.

I decided to look into the matter further and changed my mind. The war in Iraq is an pre-emptive act of naked agression and is in no way a "just war".

Isn't that just like a Christian, to assume the worst of people? There's no way to look at the War on Terror and the Battle in Iraq as anything other than a "naked act of aggression". The US and Bush-Hitler is totally wrong, even 9/11 was our fault.

30

ucfengr, What exactly do you mean by "you folks"? Also, do you really believe all that stuff you said about finding WMD's? It's a sin to bear false witness.

31

Alexander Scott has it exactly right. The plan is so generic as to be useless.

But like I also wrote, its a nice sentiment.

32

uc, It might help if you were more careful with your facts.

I wonder if you have actually read this Times article. If you read it you'd see two important things:

1) The time period they were getting close to the bomb was 1991 - read the story, 1991...not 2000!

2) Officials of the IAEA fear the information could help IRAN build its nuclear arsenal.
This document was dated 1991. According to reports, the document is a pretty detailed plan for making a bomb. He had 12 years and didn't make one. We now know that when we invaded, there were no active plans, research, etc in place to make a bomb. Hussein had no plutonium. He had no centrifuges to enrich unanium, all relevant starting material (yellowcake) was still sitting uned IAEA seals. So, obviously, the claim that "George Bush stopp[ed] Saddam from getting a nuke." is just ludicrous. If anything, these documents prove that containment was working quite well before the invasion.

33

I wonder if you have actually read this Times article. If you read it you'd see two important things:

I'm wondering the samething about you.

1) The time period they were getting close to the bomb was 1991 - read the story, 1991...not 2000!

Actually the article mentions documents from 1991 and 2002, so it can easily be interpretted that the Iraqis were 1 year away from a bomb in 2002, though I admit the article could be interpretted either way. What is clear is that Saddam retained the knowledge and research to rapidly reconstitute a nuclear program once a way was found around the sanction. The reality is there was a lot of international pressure prior to the invasion to lift the sanctions. Much of this pressure was coming from Russia and France who were making sweetheart oil deals with Saddam in exchage for this pressure. It is also likely that Russia or France would have gladly sold Saddam the hardware (centrifuges, reactors, etc.) to restart his nuclear program, just as Russia is supplying Iran now.

34

uc, I will agree with you on the French and Russians possible nefarious involvement in the future of a Saddam Iraq, but there are reasons to have tried other methods than our preemptive war on Iraq. First of all the sanctions were proven to be working. There is also the fact that Russia must be very happy to see America throw itself into a situation that will drain our resources like Afghanistan drained theirs. Afghanistan had much to do with the fall of the USSR. By the way, look at all the guns the Taliban and other insurgents have, AK-47s, made you know where.

35

First of all the sanctions were proven to be working.

I disagree. There is very little evidence that the sanctions were doing anything to weaken his regime, and there was massive cheating led by our "allies", France, Germany, and Russia. I guess you could argue that the sanctions impeded his ability to reconstitute his WMD programs, but I am skeptical even of that.

There is also the fact that Russia must be very happy to see America throw itself into a situation that will drain our resources like Afghanistan drained theirs. Afghanistan had much to do with the fall of the USSR.

If we lose in Iraq, it will not be due to a lack of might, but a lack of will. War is a brutal, dirty business and has to waged as such. You can't worry about hurting peoples feelings. We are fighting this insurgency like Oprah, when we need to fighting it like Sherman or Patton.

36

Wow, this thread has gone way off topic.

russell writes;

First of all the sanctions were proven to be working.

The Oil for Food program is direct evidence to the contrary. The sanctions were not only not working but they were killing a lot of elderly and young children thanks to Saddam starving his populace. Saddams tossing out of the inspectors is further evidence that sanctions were not working.

One is left to wonder who "proof" there is that the sanctions were working.

37

We are fighting this insurgency like Oprah, when we need to fighting it like Sherman or Patton.

Getting back on topic, this is probably a better way to deal with the slave trade. In 1820, the US passed a law equating slave trading with piracy. Hanging a few hundred slavers from a handy yardarm would probably do a lot more to discourage slavery than a hundred awareness campaigns.

38

One last bit of offthreadness. One, couldn't disagree more with the we lack the "will," to win. Two, E & L, the Killing of the elderly and children, was unforgivable on our part, but that doesn't mean we failed at stopping Saddam's nuclear program.

39

I'm taking this thread back off topic.

If you claim to be a christian and yet support the unneccessary pre-emptive invasion of Iraq with the resulting death and injury to Iraqis and US servicemen, along with false imprisonment, torture, and rendition of detainees; I'm sorry, you just don't have any credibility.

Go ahead and talk about ending slavery, while approving death, injury, torture, and never ending war being administered in our name by our so-called "born-again, evangelical" president, it just seems hypocritical. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room...

40

JohnW, you are begging the question to the extreme. Whether the war was "unneccessary" is exactly what is under debate. Few indeed here want death and injury to Iraqis or US servicemen, and fewer still see false imprisonment and torture as commendable. But unless you are arguing that all Christians must be pacifists, I suppose you agree that, say, WWII was a justifiable conflict, despite specific actions within that war being worthy of condemnation.

And even if the point about the war being wrong to begin with is conceded, it is still very much an open question if the most "loving" thing to do is to pull out. Iraq may be a mess, but it is our mess - and it may therefore fall on us to clean it up. One may argue this is beyond our ability and that we only make things worse, but there are strong arguments as well that our soldiers are helping hold back a hell of violence and anarchy in that country that would make the present disorder look like a walk in the park. After all, the brunt of the violence is directed at Iraqis. Is it neighbor love to abandon them to their fate, especially seeing that our war caused the present situation?

Your argument is essentially: "Given the war in Iraq is wrong in all aspects, therefore a Christian who supports it is supporting an evil cause and is not credible". But this is precisely what is in dispute.

41

Wonders for Oyarsa,

I said nothing about pacifism or an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

You are right Iraq is our mess now and we need to leave in such a way as to minimize loss of life and chaos.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original point: evangelicals have no credibility if they try to speak out against slavery, but continue to fail to speak out or even recognize the evil done by our "born-again" president in Iraq and his so-called "war on terror". I suggest looking at the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war-they don't sugar coat the carnage.

Ever ask yourself, why the most vocal spokesmen for Christianity, never fail to support any military action our country takes? Why does a fine christian like Jerry Falwell write articles like, "God is Pro-War"? Why does 75% of the world's population see the United States as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world? Why is it when you say you believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (the prince of peace) so many people immediately assume you are pro-war, pro-big business, and anti-evironment?

John

42

Why does 75% of the world's population see the United States as the greatest threat to peace and security in the world?

Criticizing the US is easy, cost-free, and can be done anywhere. Try going to China, Iran, or Cuba and criticizing their deplorable human rights record and see where it gets you. Let's try a little thought experiment, what do you think gives the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt nightmares, the US and Israel having nukes or the prospect of Iran having them? The answer paints a more realistic picture of who the greater threats to the peace and security of the world are.

Why is it when you say you believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (the prince of peace) so many people immediately assume you are pro-war, pro-big business, and anti-evironment?

Because it's easier than actually thinking and having to engage people who disagree with you. Dismissing them as evil is easier and so much more satisfying. As to Jesus being the Prince of Peace, even a cursory reading of the New Testament would show that Jesus was not above using violence when it was called for, also many of his early followers were soldiers, I don't recall any passages where Jesus condemned their profession.

43

ucfengr,

[I know you're just having a little fun here and are not really being serious, so I'll do the same]

Thanks for your thoughts, behold, I have now seen the error my ways, and will never ever again question the policies of our great and glorious leader. Bush is a true leader standing up for good and fighting against evil foreigners and godless liberals. All the evil doers deserve death-they are going straight to hell anyways, so who cares.

Who was I to question this?

John

44

I know you're just having a little fun here and are not really being serious, so I'll do the same

Ahh, condescension. It's almost as satisfying as dismissing people as evil, and requires about as much thought.

Bush is a true leader standing up for good and fighting against evil foreigners and godless liberals.

I wish.

45

You are right Iraq is our mess now and we need to leave in such a way as to minimize loss of life and chaos.

So you support creating a viable democracy and an Iraqi military capable of enforcing internal order and defending against regional threats? Sounds like the Bush plan.

46

The people who twist around the gospels, making Jesus out as pro-war, are hard to take seriously. What was it that Jesus told Pilot when he asked where his kingdome was? He siad he would have armed his followers in such an event.

47

The people who twist around the gospels, making Jesus out as pro-war, are hard to take seriously.

So are people who "twist around the gospels", making Jesus out to be a pacifist. It's easier to make the case that he is "pro-war" than it is that he is a pacifist, because he was obviously not opposed to using violence (clearing the temple anyone?) when circumstances called for it.

48

ucfengr, I'm done with my comments to you on this topic. You are not really having a serious discussion here anyways...

Russell, I agree with you. I don't really see much difference between our government and the roman empire of Christ's time and I know that Christ and the Apostle's didn't embrace empire then and there is no reason to do so now. In fact, Christians died because they wouldn't treat the roman rulers as gods. Now, many christians even have the nerve to say America is a christian nation! There are many christians in america, but our country as a whole, never has been "a christian nation".

John

49

You are not really having a serious discussion here anyways...

Well it is hard to have a serious discussion with someone who is unwilling to explore serious issues, instead relying Bush=Evil or on nonsense like Bush using the term "unitary executive" (referring to the President) in his signing statements. What is the president other than a "unitary executive"? The Constitution doesn't provide for a presidency by committee. Sheesh.

50

Wow JohnW!

It's so refreshing to see that there are evangelicals who question the policies of our great and glorious leader.

It amazes me that so many "christians" seem to be fans of war and torture, and are so resistant to any sort of honest appraisal of U.S. policy.

One of the things that's so good about this (original) post (way up top) is that it's one of the few posts I've seen that doesn't focus on increasing "christian" political influence, and it surprisingly doesn't turn Jesus' moral example upside down.

51

ucfengr,

What's all the sarcasm and hostility about? Isn't JohnW your brother? Didn't Jesus tell us to check our own eyesight before correcting others?

52

Fresh Air,

I don't suppose your opinion on the issue being discussed is clouding your judgment on the distribution of meanness and sarcasm between the opponents...

53

It's so refreshing to see that there are evangelicals who question the policies of our great and glorious leader.

Ahh, the obigatory comparison of Bush to Kim Jung Il, I never tire of it. It really highlights the loose grasp on reality that the Bush-haters have.

It amazes me that so many "christians" seem to be fans of war and torture,

Seems to imply that the US troops are the ones doing the war and torture, since I am pretty sure Islamic terrorists have very few Christian fans. Of course that can't be right, because you support the troops, right?

and are so resistant to any sort of honest appraisal of U.S. policy.

It amazes me that you conclude that any appraisal that doesn't agree with yours is somehow not honestestly arrived at.

What's all the sarcasm and hostility about? Isn't JohnW your brother? Didn't Jesus tell us to check our own eyesight before correcting others?

Jesus told us to worry about the plank in our own eye instead of the mote in anothers. Kind of like JohnW focusing on the alleged evil being perpetrated by US troops (mote) instead of the real evil being perpetrated by Islamic terrorists (plank).

54

Hi Joe,
Another good post on another important topic.

I agree that publicity is one critical component at this stage of the fight; most governments tend to become embarrassed into action when light is shed on what's going on within their borders and will respond to pressure. The trick is maintaining pressure and not being satisfied with quick fixes...
Pictures are good, videos even better.

Networking among human rights groups is also critical to gain the mass necessary to move authorities into action.

55

ucfengr, JohnW, are we going to have to separate y'all? I think you both need to stop and say something sweet and nice that you appreciate about each other, followed by a hug...

Proverbs 26:17

56

ucfengr, I love you man, can't we all just get along.

57

Awww, that's so nice! You know, I bet that's what Peter said after Jesus called him "Satan" that one time.

58

ucfengr, I love you man, can't we all just get along.

Between this and my little girl watching a "Strawberry Shortcake" video, I can feel myself slowing slipping into a sugar comaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

59

Kaffinator -

Did you just call JohnW Satan? And I thought that was George W...

60

Oyarsa--Much worse, I was accusing ucfengr of calling John "Satan". ucfengr...you...you...namecaller, you!

And now, back to our regularly scheduled tangential rants...

61

To give some context and meaning to my previous comments about the "unitary executive" and "signing statements", I'd like to refer anyone who is interested to a recent article in the Boston Globe about "Dick Cheney's Mission to expand--or 'restore'--the powers of the presidency". If you go to Google News and type "Hail to the Chief" "Charlie Savage" the article will come up.

The president is indeed the chief executive, but he signs legislation that is sent to him from the legislature. Nowhere in the constitution does it give him the power to change laws he signs by inserting some phrase about the "unitary executive" in his signing statements, yet he has done so, approximately 100 times during his administration.

It's sounds like a minor technical point, yet it shows how the administration does not believe in the rule of law and is authoritarian.

John "el diablo" W.

62

Ahhhh....I love the smell of ranting moonbats in the morning. It's just too bad it has to be going on here when a much more substantial and on topic discussion could be had. Just when Larry Lord gets the boot and Mummon, Raven and Boonton grow weary of using up Joe's bandwidth, along comes John W. to save the day.

63

What's a moonbat. It sounds funny, does it mean anything?

64

It's sounds like a minor technical point, yet it shows how the administration does not believe in the rule of law and is authoritarian.

How does it show this? You seem to want to equate Bush making liberal use of signing statements with him setting up a police state. Signing statements have been used since President Monroe and while President Bush may be more agressive in their use, it is sheer moonbattery to equate their use with the setting up some sort of unconstitutional, authoriatarian government.

65

This was a timely post for me to read. I just finished an article yesterday in Charisma magazine about enslaved children in Thailand. It's heartbreaking! I wanted to do something right after reading the article. I have six little ones of my own.

I agree with the commenter who linked to Compassion. It is an *excellent* organization. A fine way to help at least one child overcome poverty.

66

A fine and important post, Joe. I linked to it and quoted extensively from it, throwing in a few thoughts of my own.

Blessings in Christ,
Mark Daniels

67

ucfengr, read the Boston Globe article and may I also suggest reading John Dean's books, "Conservatives Without A Conscience" and "Worse Than Watergate" to understand what I mean by authoritarian. He would explain it better than me...but ofcourse, he is some sort of moonbat, I'm sure and a godless liberal as well.

I still don't know what a Moonbat is. It sure sounds funny, in the same way that Wingnut does.

JohnW.

68

So here's this great post about modern day slavery -- a good number of you seem to think this is an important issue -- and then this shows up in the news:

Rev. Joel Hunter, president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, is declining the job, saying the organization wouldn't let him expand its agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage.

What gives? Do you think this is a problem?

69

JohnW--The problem with using words like "authoritarian" to describe people is that "authoritarian" has certain connotations, things like the suppression of opposition, closing down newspapers, locking up political opponents, etc. If Bush were really an "authoritarian" who didn't respect the "rule of law", we would have never heard of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore, the New York Times wouldn't have printed their expose on terrorist wiretapping because they would have been shut down long ago, and "People Magazine's" sexiest man alive would be breaking big rocks into little ones. You may not like Bush, may not like the way he walks and talks, and you may not agree with his policies, but to equate that with Bush being "authoritarian" is foolishness and makes it hard to take you seriously.

70

In all honesty, I wish Bush were a little more authoritarian. He shows far to much deference to the generals conducting military operations in Iraq, a more authoritarian president would have replaced them long ago. Lincoln or FDR would not be very accepting of the status quo in Iraq, they would be looking for some more aggressive generals. A more authoritarian president would have vetoed McCain-Feingold rather relying on the courts to get rid of the parts he thought unconstitutional. IMO, Bush is more of an anti-authoritarian than the opposite.

71

slavery is not just a problem in other places and with scary other-faith people. Here in Milwaukee, two seemingly quite respectable Christian physicians were just convicted of involuntary servitude, etc., for importing, then keeping isolated in their home, a 24/7/365 unpaid maidservant for 14 years. And just a few months ago there were nationwide raids to release dozens of trafficked and enslaved cooks and restaurant workers. And this doesn't even get near either the illegal products and services businesses or those who use the labor of the poor on a day-labor basis then refuse to pay, knowing that very few of the workers have the resources necessary to get recourse.

72

This is a great post. Awareness for this issue needs to get out there. There are programs in place to help those who have been trafficked (of course, not many know about them), but that still doesn't help us stop the atrocity. Keep this awareness up!

73

ucfengr,

I don’t remember saying anything about jack booted thugs hauling liberals off to concentration camps in America or even mentioning the Nazis or Hitler.

I am using the word, “authoritarian” according to the following Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition which defines “authoritarian” as:

1. of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

Here are some things you could read to get a better sense of the way I am using the word, “authoritarian” in connection with the Bush administration:

1. John Dean’s commentary about David Kuo’s book, “Tempting Faith”: The Author’s Agenda, the Authoritarian Behavior He Reports, and the White House’s Response. (found at writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061020.html)
2. Psychologist Bob Altemeyer’s recent book entitled, “the authoritarians”

You could dismiss these authors as being “moon bats” or “godless liberals”, but even if you do, it might be useful to read what many of the people who oppose the Bush administration are thinking; it will also provide some insight about how they view people who seemingly blindly support Bush.

John

74

JohnW--Read Mr. Dean's commentary and interview with Mr. Altemeyer and as best I can make out, conservative leaders are Svengalis who've hypnotized the rank and file, who are for the most part, slack-jawed yokels quaking in fear that the hoe-mo-sex-you-alls might invade their trailer parks. Can't say I'm overly impressed with your authorities and their opinion of me. Suffice it to say, I probably won't be adding Altemeyer's or Dean's books to my Christmas wish list.

75

ucfengr,

Wasn't trying to insult you. Just wanted to clarify what I meant by authoritarian.

The John Dean books I mentioned before are pretty straightforward and not written by a partisan hack with a blinding hatred of Bush. I believe He is geniunely just a concerned American.

My posting on this thread kind of got off topic, so maybe I should stop now.

JohnW

76

Ucfengr writes:

In all honesty, I wish Bush were a little more authoritarian. He shows far to much deference to the generals conducting military operations in Iraq, a more authoritarian president would have replaced them long ago. Lincoln or FDR would not be very accepting of the status quo in Iraq, they would be looking for some more aggressive generals. A more authoritarian president would have vetoed McCain-Feingold rather relying on the courts to get rid of the parts he thought unconstitutional.

What a distinctly Un-American sentiment. You are looking for a King, not a President. We in the US don't go looking for some white knight to come riding in and take charge and solve all our problems for us. No King George thank you very much. Already got rid of one back in the 17th century, no need for a new one.

77

What a distinctly Un-American sentiment. You are looking for a King, not a President.

Gryph--Perhaps if you read my post instead of just cutting and pasting it you would have noticed that the leaders I wished Bush would emulate were former US presidents (Lincoln and FDR), not foreign potentates. I fail to see how it is "un-American" to wish Bush would act more like two of our more successful wartime presidents with respect to the Iraq and the War on Terror. I would also include Churchill on the list, if I weren't afraid of being called out for "pro-British" sympathies. They have a Queen you know.

Wasn't trying to insult you. Just wanted to clarify what I meant by authoritarian.

John--I'm not insulted, I'm just giving you my opinion on the writings of your sources, though I confess, I can see how someone less confident of themselves and their opinions might be.

78

Good job!

79

It is sad that our own people are falling there is so much turmoil going on and what most of us have to say is what about me. The problems going on, on our homeland very much affects us. To turn our backs on our own people because the world might end or because if we pretend to be blind it might go away, is wrong. Yes inorder to make a change we have to stand together and it is hard when we cant figure out how to get off our buts. we all have something to say but i agree what are we going to do. no nothing is going to be solved over night, but where and when do we start. yes our world may end jesus may come back, but is it not the goal to make thngs right do our best. Yes i believe you should be firm in your belief right with what you believe, but does that mean to turn your back on your own, to save your skin.

80

It is sad that our own people are falling there is so much turmoil going on and what most of us have to say is what about me. The problems going on, on our homeland very much affects us. To turn our backs on our own people because the world might end or because if we pretend to be blind it might go away, is wrong. Yes inorder to make a change we have to stand together and it is hard when we cant figure out how to get off our buts. we all have something to say but i agree what are we going to do. no nothing is going to be solved over night, but where and when do we start. yes our world may end jesus may come back, but is it not the goal to make thngs right do our best. Yes i believe you should be firm in your belief right with what you believe, but does that mean to turn your back on your own, to save your skin.

81

It is sad that our own people are falling there is so much turmoil going on and what most of us have to say is what about me. The problems going on, on our homeland very much affects us. To turn our backs on our own people because the world might end or because if we pretend to be blind it might go away, is wrong. Yes inorder to make a change we have to stand together and it is hard when we cant figure out how to get off our buts. we all have something to say but i agree what are we going to do. no nothing is going to be solved over night, but where and when do we start. yes our world may end jesus may come back, but is it not the goal to make thngs right do our best. Yes i believe you should be firm in your belief right with what you believe, but does that mean to turn your back on your own, to save your skin.

82

Twenty years of struggle against AIDS. Grassroots campaign against AIDS. The struggle to find a cure for AIDS has contributed to other areas... WBR LeoP

83

http://giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-online.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-online.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-online.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-online.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-flash.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info[/url]

84

http://giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash-porno.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-di-elio.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-online.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-online.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-online.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-online.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-flash.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash.giochimilano.info[/url]
http://giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info/index.html >giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info [url=http://giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info/index.html]giochi-flash-sexy.giochimilano.info[/url]

85

Before you make the decision on how to make money with this credit card be sure to read the fine print. Can you get cashback for shopping at ANY supermarket or drugstore? Most of banks work with particular stores. Read all the details at

86

Before you make the decision on how to make money with this credit card be sure to read the fine print. Can you get cashback for shopping at ANY supermarket or drugstore? Most of banks work with particular stores. Read all the details at

87

Hi guys, all the best to you! Please tell me how to behave in such state – I need a very good credit ‘cause there’s a job I want so. But they won’t accept me, I’m a student. I’m going to improve credit and apply for secured credit cards. So far I visited a web site but I cannot rely on it until you tell me if it’s worth applying there! Please recommend

88

In Iran, Putin Warns Against Military Action:
http://salihome.info/show/index.html