1

Joe - it just isn't true that Christian Unions are being discriminated against. Student Unions have insisted for a long time that affiliated organisations must offer open membership and elect officers democratically. They were doing that when I was an undergraduate. CUs don't do the first, and many don't do the second either. But not being affiliated to the Student Union doesn't prevent the CU operating on campus, and many CUs have chosen on principle not to affiliate to their Student Union.

2

McCain is right. Sadly, I suspect that when it comes to Iraq we will lose. Regardless of what missteps the Administration makes in conducting the war (and there have been many) the fact remains that the American people simply do not have the will to win.

It's even worse than that, Joe. The reality is that there is a significant portion of the West (US and Europe) that is pulling for the other side. This is especially true among the cultural and academic elites, the ostensibly smart among us.

3

McCain is right. Sadly, I suspect that when it comes to Iraq we will lose. Regardless of what missteps the Administration makes in conducting the war (and there have been many) the fact remains that the American people simply do not have the will to win.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. Yes, the Left doesn't want us to win because they in general hate America. However, the middle and many on the right have given up on the Iraq war not because they don't want to win, but because they see the current leadership as having not strategy and not trying to win. Let's look at some examples:

1. A failure to define the enemy. GWoT is a ridiculous term and when Bush tried to use Islamofacist, he quickly quit using it. You have to define who you are fighting. I would define our war as against those who seek to impose Islamic Sharia through violent or peaceful means.
2. We have thousands of illegal aliens crossing our borders, overstaying their visas, etc. every day. Little to nothing is being done to stop it. Just recently there was a news report of ICE catching and releasing several thousand potential terrorist threats.
3. We allowed a record numbers of people last year to immigrate to this country from countries that have strong jihadist movements. If you think they went through a strong vetting process, I have some swamp land for you.
4. What is our goal in Iraq. If it was to make sure Saddam wasn't a threat to us or our allies, we could have easily installed a friendly and relatively more benign government and been gone by now. If it was democracy, then how are our efforts different from the British efforts in the 30's and what factors provide for a republican form to develop and grow? If to fight the jihadists, then why have we allowed them to continue and be supplied by Iran and Syria? We've been treading water for about two years and looking for a way to get out. The Iraqis can't form a constitutional govt because the conditions (culturally, educationally, etc.) aren't right to form such a government. That's not their fault, it's our fault for believing a liberal trope that all people want and are capable of the same things.

So, it's not people's fault for not supporting the "war." It's the administration's fault for not defining and actually fighting a war.

4

So, it's not people's fault for not supporting the "war." It's the administration's fault for not defining and actually fighting a war.

This is certainly as big a driver as the constant focus by our cultural elites on the negative news coming out of Iraq. If you're in a war, fight the damn war, don't worry about making people love you. You can worry about that after you've made them realize the futility of fighting you. We've been fighting this war with 8 parts Oprah and 2 parts Patton, that ratio needs to be reversed.

5

Ucfenger,
"It's even worse than that, Joe. The reality is that there is a significant portion of the West (US and Europe) that is pulling for the other side. This is especially true among the cultural and academic elites, the ostensibly smart among us."

By what facts or logic can you support that statement. Also this talk of "will" in winning the war, I suppose you mean the blood of others than your own.

6

Christian persecution is present in all segments of society - the U.S. is just now catching up with the rest of the world.

7

By what facts or logic can you support that statement.

You may not like it, but if you are pulling for a US withdrawl before Iraq is stable enough to resist Iranian and Syrian influence, then you are pulling for the other side, because those are the folks that are going to fill the vacumm our withdrawl creates. This is especially true of those who actively oppose the war as opposed to those who are merely disillusioned by Bush's mishandling of it.

Also this talk of "will" in winning the war, I suppose you mean the blood of others than your own.

Well, of course, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.", (George S. Patton). Another applicable Patton quote could be, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo." If you substitute Damascus and Tehran for Berlin and Tokyo, it would be spot on.

8

ucfengr,

I second your comment. To use another Patton quote "America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war."
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case, and our society is ashamed of winning. The only thing I can see changing that is losing a city via an Iranian nuke, or a carrier battle group by a Chinese naval attack. Maybe then Americans will decide that winning beats losing. Right now losing doesn't hurt anything but our pride, but its pretty obvious Americans lack pride and heart.

9

Regarding Jim Wallis giving the democratic radio address last Saturday, you are right he does express political views.

Wallis is pretty clear that he is expressing political viewpoints-viewpoints that have been influenced by his chrisitian faith. Also, he realizes that christians don't have a monolopy when it comes to morality and when you are in the political arena in a pluralistic country you can work with non-christians and it does no good to go around arguing that your ideas are correct because they come from the bible. As an evangelical, I share many of his viewpoints and applaud him for speaking out.

Tony Perkins and James Dobson express right-wing political viewpoints, however, they are less straightforward. They pretend they are not political, but are.

JohnW

10

"You may not like it, but if you are pulling for a US withdrawl before Iraq is stable enough to resist Iranian and Syrian influence, then you are pulling for the other side, because those are the folks that are going to fill the vacumm our withdrawl creates."
If these people you say are for the enemy had no good arguments on their side, I might agree with you. Its not always bad to take stock of a situation and readjust. If Hitler had listened to his generals in Russia there would have been no Stalingrad. (lucky for us.) Also, what do you call winning exactly and how many dead American soldiers so you consider worth the cost? We lost 58,000 in Nam and would have lost more if the war hawks had had their way. Lastly, Patton was a great man to have fight battles but his philosophy on other matters left much to be desired.

11

Russell,

We lost 58,000 in Southeast Asia precisely because the war hawks didn't get their way. By the time we started bombing Hanoi in 1972 we had alredy lost most of those soldiers killed. Had we been aggressive in bombing the North from the beginning, we may have lost fewer troops, ended the war earlier and and had a victory. However, given the Soviet involvement there were alot of considerations that made fighting in Viet Nam less than clear cut.
I believe that there isn't the will to win in Iraq, because the American people aren't willing to accept the price. The president is hamstrung because he can't simply withdraw, and he can't do what it takes to win. The Left, aided by the mainstream media will simply sabotage any effort at victory.

12

To say that Christians are being persecuted in America or Britain is frankly preposterous -- and offensive to those around the world who suffer real persecution. Ekklesia has a very good report on the CU/SU story, and anyone who is interested in the truth (rather than fostering paranoia about Christian persecution) should read it carefully.

13

Finlay,

From what I have read, our current position in Iraq is actually helping Iran. Iran is mostly Shia and so are the government in Iraq who we are helping. Iran's biggest enemies. the Sunnis, who were powerful in Iraq and in Afghanistan are the people who we are helping them win against, The big bad guy in the whole scenario, and always have been, are the Taliban and al Queda. The Taliban are a very brutal sect and have just drawn and quartered a 46 year old teacher in Afghanistan for teaching to girls.

14

If Hitler had listened to his generals in Russia there would have been no Stalingrad. (lucky for us.)

The problem with this analogy is that there is no Red Army in Iraq, nor is there a Russian winter for our forces to contend with. Also if you listen to Bush and his generals, the problem is not that Bush ignores his generals but that he defers to them too much.

Also, what do you call winning exactly and how many dead American soldiers so you consider worth the cost?

I think victory now will be a lot cheaper than it would be against a Middle East dominated by a nuclear armed Iran. France and England had several opportunities to stop Germany prior to 1939, when it would have been relatively cheap. They chose not to because they were concerned about the cost. Their failure to act may have been pennywise, but it turned out to be pound-foolish.

We lost 58,000 in Nam and would have lost more if the war hawks had had their way.

War is not simple arithmatic, it is advanced calculus. If we had given these "war hawks" their way, the war might have ended sooner and proven less costly, there is no way of knowing. One variable you leave out of your calculations is how many Vietnamese and Cambodians would have been slaughtered in the "Killing Fields" and the Vietnamese equivalent if we had decided that victory in Vietnam was worth the price.

15

Ucfengr, You seem to base your opinions on hard reality, which is good, but what possible good scenario can you see with our continuing our war in Iraq? How do we make the Sunnis and Shiits come together to work out a good government? Our very presence there makes most Muslims angry. One poll I saw recently said 80% of Iraqis want us to leave. Why don't we give them a vote on the matter?

16

uc, I've got things to get done so I'm wrapping up my debate. one thing, Protestants and Catholics have been at war with each other many times and not all that long ago in Ireland. Also, it seems you could drop the rhetoric about people who disagree with the Iraq policy as "enemies." or terrorists. I, for one sincerely want to see the right thing done.

17

Richard Joe - it just isn't true that Christian Unions are being discriminated against.

Really? That’s not the impression I got from reading the article you sent from Ekklesia.

Student Unions have insisted for a long time that affiliated organisations must offer open membership and elect officers democratically. They were doing that when I was an undergraduate.

So what your saying is that the Christian Unions are allowed to be a part of the Student Unions…as long as they don’t let their Christian beliefs get in the way. I sort of see that as discrimination. ; )

CUs don't do the first, and many don't do the second either. But not being affiliated to the Student Union doesn't prevent the CU operating on campus, and many CUs have chosen on principle not to affiliate to their Student Union.

That’s not what the Times article said: “At Exeter the CU had privileges removed, including free access to university rooms after the student guild ruled that its statement of beliefs breached its equality guidelines.”

The Times also notes that the Student Unions specifically changed the rules to ensure that the CUs would no longer be able to be included in the unions. Why is that fair? Aren’t these public universities? Shouldn’t a public university protect the right of free association?

To say that Christians are being persecuted in America or Britain is frankly preposterous -- and offensive to those around the world who suffer real persecution.

I completely agree with you on that. Christians in the West may face discrimination but it is a far cry from the persecution that many of our brothers and sisters around the world face on a daily basis.

18

Russell, my opinion is that we simply tell the current government they are on their own, and that we will depose them like we deposed Saddam if they support jihadists. We will remove any Iraqi government that supports jihadists. Otherwise, they are free to do what they want. We then withdraw to a base in the region, like the Kurdish area, that allows us to take action if necessary. It's cheaper in lives and money for us to remove dangerous governments every 10-20 years, than to try and build some Western democracy where it won't work. This would all be part of a larger strategy of recognizing who are enemy is and taking the necessary steps to fight and contain them.

Again, the problem is that the administration isn't fighting a war with any sort of realistic strategy. It doesn't understand the enemy and it has a fantasy outlook on "the power of democracy."

19

Protestants and Catholics have been at war with each other many times and not all that long ago in Ireland.

The recent troubles in Northern Ireland were a nationalist war not a religious one. While the conflict did have religious origins, it was really more a result of the nationalist movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Also, it seems you could drop the rhetoric about people who disagree with the Iraq policy as "enemies." or terrorists. I, for one sincerely want to see the right thing done.

In the context of my last statement, the enemy I was referring to are the people shooting at our people, not people who disagree with the current Iraq policy. I would include myself amongst the people who disagree with our current Iraq policy, but our solutions would differ.

20

Chris, That sounds pretty good to me.

21

I generally like what McCain says, but I have to disagree with him here. Throughout history, there have been many wars that have ended in compromise. The Korean War is one example that jumps to mind (and yes, I know that the war has never technically ended; according to the US, it never started). Another one from US history is the War of 1812. The Treaty of Ghent established status quo antebellum. There have been many wars in which one can make a good case that both sides lost (the Iran/Iraq war). And perhaps a few where both sides won, at least in the long term. Sometimes a victory is more debilitating to the winner than to the loser (see Phyrrus).

McCain's simplistic formulation is particularly unhelpful with regard to the current Iraq conflagration, as there are many different ideas of what exactly would constitute a victory for the US. One man's definition of a win might fit another's definition of a loss.

22

"the Left doesn't want us to win because they in general hate America."

What an incredibly stupid statement, Chris. Your charm will sway even fewer liberals than your logic. Can't you just criticize the positions of the left without lying about their motivation? I'm sure I know more "lefties" than you do, and I know NONE who hate America.

23

Rob,

You are wrong, the America that the Left claims to love is an America that never existed and with God's grace never will. The evidence is too overwhelming to think otherwise. The Left is the home of blame America firstism. The Left are those who deny American exceptionalism. The Left is the side that only supports military action if it isn't in America's national interest. The Left are the ones who denigrate the history of this nation. In Iraq, the left has stood on the sidelines and offered no help to the administration, the soldiers or the Iraqis. Unless you count snark, nihilism and self-centeredness, as the quintissential American values, the left rejects Amercian values.

24

Joe,
Let's not relegate persecution to only the torturous type. Yes, that is worse than what we suffer and those being treated so certainly suffer more than us. But Christ also includes slander with persecution in Matthew 5. And that is clearly a bit of real persection that some on the Left enjoy dishing out.

25

"But Christ also includes slander with persecution in Matthew 5. And that is clearly a bit of real persection that some on the Left enjoy dishing out."

How ironic, Collin, that you make that comment immediately following the slanders of Finlay and Chris Lutz, who, instead of targeting their criticism, opt instead for sweeping condemnations that assign the most pernicious motives to sincere, patriotic people. It brings discredit upon your worldview when those who share it evince such malice, so you should be as concerned about their slander as any from the other side.

Could you please explain to me, Finlay, what "American exceptionalism" is? I disagree with every other statement you made in your last comment, and I'd just like to know if it's a clean sweep.

26

Living With Liberalism...
The state of the question:

I'm quite sympathetic to what has been said in the Koyzis and Dijkema article about liberalism (including both its left/progressive and right/conservative manifestations) and its deficiencies. However, while mention is made of liberalism's individualistic emphasis, there was no mention of either 1) upon what fundamental commitment liberalism seeks to ground itself ideologically, or 2) in what specific ultimate religious conviction/s liberalism is actually grounded.

What I have in mind with regard to #1 is that the liberal ideological tradition has typically sought to ground itself in various conceptions of a natural order. These liberal conceptions of the natural order must also be considered, otherwise it may result for Christians in a shallow reaction that 1) dismisses a sort of straw-man liberalism, and 2) embraces a would-be alternative that is subject to the same or equally problematic grounds.

Merely appealing to "the natural order of things" over-against the seeming failure of liberalism to satisfy such an order will not do. What is liberalism's own understanding of that natural order to which it appeals? And what makes their conception of that order erroneous?

If liberals also advocated healthy life-long marriage, stable large families, committed church participation, effective work-related solidarities, vibrant civil involvement, and public faith-motivated expression... would that be enough? Or must we take a more incisive look at competing conceptions of the natural order which ideologies claim as the ground of their own societal projects?

Koyzis and Dijkema aim to respond to this question shortly.

27

Rob,

If your skin is that thin and you think what I wrote was slanderous maybe you should go crawl into your mom's lap and have a good cry. Interestingly if what I said hurt your feelings it must be because your felt their was some truth in it, all protestation aside.
That American exceptionalism is an idea you aren't familiar with doesn't surprise me at all. In fact it only goes to prove my point. If you are somehow claiming to be one of those sincere patriotic people you mention, I've never seen any evidence of it in your many posts here.

28

American Exceptionalism is the notion that America is special in God's eyes and it's government's policies and wars are blessed by God.

American Exceptionalism promotes ideas such as:
1. The bad old liberals want to keep our country from it's righteous path and must be stopped.
2. American is a "christian nation" and all true Christians must fight to "take america back for God".
3. Our government doesn't need to work with other countries or worry about what they think because after all America is the special shining "city on a hill" destined to rule the world. (But don't worry, we are a good empire with everyone's well-being in mind...)

How's that definition, Finley?

JohnW

29

JohnW,

Not even close. But you do add another data point of evidence to the left's disdain of America. So you got that going for you, which is nice.
One doesn't have to believe in a God to subscribe to the idea of American Exceptionalism. However you cannot deny that the foundation of this nation upon Judeo-Christian principles combined with Enlightenment philosophy has created a nation unlike no other on earth.

30

We might as well admit it, fellow members of the Left - Finlay is on to us. We might as well go ahead and reveal the rest of our agenda. The Left wants to keep all blacks on welfare, outlaw religion (well, mainly Christianity), euthanize everyone over 65 (except our beloved leader Teddy Kennedy), and nominate the first non-human, probably a dolphin, to the Supreme Court.

31

Ok, Finley, you tell me what you think "american exceptionalism" means.

The "american exceptionalism" being embraced by Bush and his supporters is not really something to be proud of and it's certainly nothing a christian should embrace.

FYI, there is quite a difference between appreciating the freedoms we enjoy and loving our country and arrogantly believing America has some sort of special place in the world and it's our duty to lead the world (and occupy a foriegn country, killing a half million people to bring them "democracy").

I love my country and my christian faith is important to me, but I absolutely reject the idea that the United States is or ever was a "christian nation". Christian nations do not slaughter native americans and import Africans as slaves...

Hey, ex-preacher, you forgot to mention the "homosexual agenda" and how the "war on christmas" is part of the plot to remove christianity from our country....

John

32

Here's another salvo from the Left: Happy Holidays!

Gosh, we are a meanspirited bunch.

33

I vote to confirm the Dolphin!! I know it would do a better job.

Good to see ex-preach being honest with himself:-) Today trans fats, tomorrow religion...all in due time.

34

Regardless of the 'exceptionalism' bit, the real question is this: what are we to do with the millions of Muslims who want us dead, converted, or dhimmitized? Will we actually take action to protect this nation before a major city becomes a glowing cinder? Or will we do so even then?

35

OK...now I understand what 'comment name' means; it's the commentER's name, not the title of the comment. Thus the above post should have started with 'Doc writes:'...

36

Myself, I'm not really so scared of muslim terrorists, that I want to disregard our american way of life, freedoms, and moral credibility. Are You?

We can handle terrorist threats without declaring a never-ending "war on terror". This whole "war on terror" idea is nothing but an overblown lie and fear-mongering.

JohnW

37

JohnW,
You wrote: "FYI, there is quite a difference between appreciating the freedoms we enjoy and loving our country and arrogantly believing America has some sort of special place in the world and it's our duty to lead the world (and occupy a foriegn country, killing a half million people to bring them "democracy")."

American exceptionalism is precisely the belief that we have a special place in the world, and have a duty to lead. That's why America has taken the lead in global disaster relief, AIDs prevention in Africa, and countless other endeavors. These act often earn us nothing but criticism from other nations.
Half a million people? You must be speaking about Germany or Japan in the 40's, in which case yes it was our duty to defeat Facism.

ex-preacher

If you can't be funny, then it's best to not even try, that was a sad effort.

38

As my previous attempt to respond has apparently not gone through, I will try again. Hopefully, this will not result in a double post.

Finlay said:"If your skin is that thin and you think what I wrote was slanderous maybe you should go crawl into your mom's lap and have a good cry. Interestingly if what I said hurt your feelings it must be because your felt their was some truth in it, all protestation aside."

Yes, I think what you said was slanderous; no, you didn't hurt my feelings. Nor do I feel there is any truth in it.

I think your tone is insulting and that you represent your faith poorly.

"That American exceptionalism is an idea you aren't familiar with doesn't surprise me at all."

I'm familiar with the idea, just not the term. I notice that you fail to enlighten me; instead, John W. must step in. Thanks to you, John.

"If you are somehow claiming to be one of those sincere patriotic people you mention, I've never seen any evidence of it in your many posts here."

I have little confidence in your ability to evaluate evidence. Perhaps you can provide an example of anything I've said that is remotely unpatriotic; I think not!

39

Finlay,

The half million people I refer to earlier are the approximately 600,000 people that have died unneccessarily as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. We never found the WMD over there, so now the idea is we are bring "democracy". Doesn't seem to be catching on to well-may be they don't like it being pushed on them militarily.

I see you think "american exceptionalism" has a positive meaning.

40

JohnW,

Why not just call it a billion if you are going to make up numbers.

Rob,

As for representing my faith poorly, other than agreeing with you, is there any way you wouldn't think I was setting a poor example? Because you have no faith I guess you get a pass on jerkiness.

41

"As for representing my faith poorly, other than agreeing with you, is there any way you wouldn't think I was setting a poor example?"

Yes. You could disagree with me without the crybaby insinuations. There are plenty of Christians who post here who DO NOT represent their faith poorly.

"Because you have no faith I guess you get a pass on jerkiness."

Is it jerkiness to point out your jerkiness? I've never pretended that atheism excuses lack of civility. However, I don't think I am guilty of that offense in this exchange. I have not made you out to be unpatriotic or in need of maternal comfort.

42

Finlay,

I suppose even if it was a billion Iraqis dead, you still wouldn't care, right? Afterall, it's just a number and the war is just something we see on TV. Most of them aren't Christians anyways, so who cares?

FYI, I am referring to the Lancet Medical Journal's study released in October, which estimates the deaths resulting from the war as around 650,000.

43

JohnW,

You said: "Most of them aren't Christians anyways, so who cares?"
Wow, what a horrible, horrible human being you must be to think that anyone could be so flip about the loss of life in Iraq. The only distinction I make is between the decent and the indecent. However, your probationary place on the decent list is dangerously close to being revoked.

The Lancet study has been shown to be a fraud due to its faulty methodology. It's not a good tactic to try and win a debate point with false information. My already low opinion of your argument just got lower.

Rob,

"There are plenty of Christians who post here who DO NOT represent their faith poorly."

I can't see that you treat them with anymore civility than you treat me, so why bother?

44

Finley,

With all due respect, anyone reading your various comments here, could reasonable conclude that you are very flip about the loss of life in war in general.

Could you direct me to some unbiased reporting or estimates of Iraqi deaths due to our invasion and occuptation? What's your estimate?

John

45

This is a great Blog!

46

[URL=" http://bcasinos.weblogs.pl/ ">Best Online Casinoshttp://bcasinos.weblogs.pl/ ">best online casinos