How Can Any Christian Support the Iraq War?

[Ravenseye]

Matthew 1:38-39

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well."

If you're truly a Christian what is the reasoning here to support the war?

How would a true Christian nation (I'm not saying the U.S. is one) have approached the situation?

[Modem Butterfly]

1. How can any HUMAN support the Iraq war?

:shrug:

Once that one gets answered, then we can start figuring out the little groupings of humans who support it.

[Ravenseye]

2. Humans are a pretty nasty breed.

That seems to be one of the reasons for the more 'passive' religions. To quell the 'beast' within. We're animals. We forget that. Animals can be violent and competitive, even if they're not doing it with malice.

We arguably added in that last bit.

How can any human support the war? Easy. They weren't raised propertly. They were taught the wrong things. They are ignorant. Etc.

My question though is "How can one who professes to follow the teachings of Christ support the war, or in that regard, this administration?"

[MemphisTiger]

3. You are taking that passage out of context

That passage refers to people not nations. Jesus also tells his apostles to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. The sword was not for killing snakes. (Luke 2:36-38)

A leader of a country has a responsibility to defend its people. Otherwise, the armies if evil would rule the earth if others were pacifists.

[Ravenseye]

4. Um....Is that the right passage?

Which bible are you using?

I get Luke 2:36-38 as

36 There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, 37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer. 38 And coming forward at that very time, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem

in the New American Bible and

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

in the King James.

What's up with that? Why is every bible different?

[MemphisTiger]

7. Sorry Luke 22:36-38

[Ravenseye]

18. Luke 22:36:38 doesn't apply

36 He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked'; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment." 38 Then they said, "Lord, look, there are two swords here." But he replied, "It is enough!"

I don't see how this applies to governments making war. Jesus was saying that in contrast to the ministry of the Twelve and of the seventy-two during the period of Jesus (Luke 9:3; 10:4), in the future period of the church the missionaries must be prepared for the opposition they will face in a world hostile to their preaching.

The farewell discourse ends abruptly with the words "It is enough!" of Jesus when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world's hostility.

He was speaking figuratively about them defending themselves against opponents of his church, not governments, and not condoning violence.

[MemphisTiger]

22. Also check Romans 13:4

Romans 13:4 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

This is pretty clear. We do have to fight wars. We do not live in a perfect world.

[Ravenseye]

24. This is one of my many problems with the Bible

Nothing Jesus said ever condoned violence in any way. Nothing. He spoke of it figuratively and it was missunderstood and he ended that lesson.

Paul comes along and gives his interpretation in his letters and people consider it above what Jesus commanded? I don't get that.

Not to mention that what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1-7 is that Government (ie Caesar) has the responsibility to make just laws, etc. What it's saying is that the government (Caesar again) is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision.

[MemphisTiger]

27. It depends on how you view scripture

The Old Testament is God's word as well as the New Testament. I believe they are both God's word. You also have to look at the context each passage is written. You can take any passage and interpret it differently by reading one sentence.

[Ravenseye]

28. That's sort of my point

If we're dealing only with the New Testament there are tons of contradictions. Bring in the Old Testament and forget about it. How many things in the OT are completely dissued today, while other's are at the forefront of our national policy.

I think that anything in the New Testament overrules anything in the old. Anything spoken by Jesus in the New overrules anything said by anyone else in the New.

Every passage you've put forward though has been a passage taken out of context. The passage from Luke, the one from the Romans. People take figurative language and use single lines to support ideas. My responses were based on analysis by people of the passages within context.

[MemphisTiger]

33. I don't think it's been taken out of context

I would say that you are putting forward your analysis of scripture. Read the Old Testament. All of it. It will tie together. Also, I would like to see your anlysis of these chapters. I'm not sure about your analysis.

[Ravenseye]

38. I have read the Old Testament and...

The analysis I've listed in my threads comes from actual biblical scholars.

Any specific verses you want to analyse from the Old or New Testaments?

How bout Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised

For insurance reasons today's hospitals circumsize boys before they leave the hospital, usually on the second day. If you leave the hospital without a circumcision then insurance won't pay for it. If you're not Jewish your only option is to go back into the hospital and pay for the circumsizion on the 8th day, if you can arrange to schedule it on that day. You have to pay for this proceedure out of your own pocket and it can cost thousands of dollars, as it's considered uncesssary plastic surgery.

If the Old Testament is the word of god, and this is a law put forward by the Lord, is it necessary to obey this command?

I'm sort of playing to that email thread mentioning things in the Old Testament that we don't follow today.

[MemphisTiger]

45. Who are your scholars?

What are their denominations?
The answer to these questions make a difference.

[Ravenseye]

47. They make a difference, but should they?

Catholic from a few different sources. Methodist from another.

What are your sources and scholars and denominations?

[MemphisTiger]

53. Your sources are contradictary

Catholocism - non-evangelical, works based salvation, believes that the Old Testament is just a bunch of stories

Methodism - evangelical, grace based salvation, believes taht Old and New Testaments are the word of the Lord.

I'm a Methodist, and don't need the help of a scholar. I'm discussing this with you. What do YOU think? Many so-called scholars are going to end up in Hell on judgement day. I forget the scripture passage.

[Ravenseye]

54. You asked for sources

So I gave you them. Yes the denominations are contradictory but I don't feel I should restrict myself to any one particular denominations interpretations.

As far as what I think, my thoughts are in line with the postings I've made.

I think that the Old Testament is interesting source material but to put emphasis on passages there above what Jesus taught is contradictory to being a good Christian. I think that Jesus taught pacifism amongst other things and while we may not agree with it, his teachings are very specific about what people should do, turn the other cheek etc. I think that the entire bible as we read it is suspect in that it has been overly translated and reinterpreted over the years so that the bible of today is not the bible of a thousand years ago in many respects. I think that because of this we need to look at the bible critically and not as the exact word of god, and look at it to discern that question 'What would jesus do?' I think the better question is 'What would Jesus want ME to do.' I think any kind of violence goes against these teachings, as well as emotional and mental violence and language.

I think that with all this said, I am not a Christian. I don't follow what Jesus said, but I also certainly don't believe that 99.9% of people who profess to be Christians do either.

I think people pick out passages of the Bible or other religious works and use them to make claims that are otherwise specifically against the teachings of Jesus.

I think that I lead my life as best I can. I try to be as good, nice and helpfull to others as I can. I don't commit acts of violence in any way if I can help it, and when I have I always feel bad about it and try to make things right.

I think that if Jesus is in a 'Jack Chick' form then I don't want to get into Heaven.

I think too much violence and evil has been committed in this world because of Christianity and other organized religions and I don't understand how people can overlook specific teachings of peace and love and instead embrace ill thoughts.

Thats just me though. Feel free to dissagree.

[MemphisTiger]

75. I do disagree with you, but respectfully

I will say that your sources can not converge on the same interpretations of scripture because of the diverse nature of these two denominations. That's just the way it is. I will also say that the turn the other cheek passage is about personal relationships, not nations defending themselves. You should check out the New American Standard Translation Bible. It is supposed to be the best translation from the original Greek writings. I also think too much violence has been committed in the world in the name of religion. However, many of these acts glorified man not God, therefore it is blasphemy.

[GumboYaYa]

66. More support:

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." MAT 5:44
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself." MARK 12:31
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." LUKE 6:27
"Love one another, just as I love you." JOHN 15:12

This mesasage shows up in EVERY gospel, and in each case, is a DIRECT quote of Jesus. "Violence" is never placed in a positive light by Jesus. For instance, in Luke, Jesus rebukes a Pharisee, telling him that he is full of violence and evil.

Matthew and Luke recall Jesus telling us that if someone hits us on the cheek, that we should let him hit the other one. In Matthew, Jesus lays out a whole procedure for dealing with someone who has wronged you. At no point in that procedure does it say "then you can become violent". When Jesus is asked how many times we should forgive a brother that has sinned against us, he responds that we should forgive him 7 times 70.


I forget which book of the old testament it appears in, but one of the best quotes in the entire Bible is the one where they talk about how the Messiah will beat their swords into plowshares...

[wicket]

5. "A leader of a country has a responsibility to defend its people. "

Except, of course, that Iraq did not attack us.

[gollygee]

8. Oh yeah, that little detail

LOL

[MemphisTiger]

10. That's the fuzzy part

It must be a just war. However, some have twisted the term just to mean cheap oil, which still hasn't happened. Wasn't that one of his campaigne promises in 2000? I guess he flip-flopped on that too

[Lerkfish]

30. "just war" is an oxymoron.

wars kills innocents. No war can be just.

[trezic]

55. Morally confused

Enforcing the law kills innocents. Does that it make automatically unjust?

Opposing all war on the grounds of innocents dying is morally confused. If the choice is between a lifetime of slavery or a year of war to end that slavery, is the war unjust? To say yes is to condemn the slaves; to say no is to recognize the basic imperfection of humans and their duty to do the best THEY CAN, not the best imaginable.

[GOPFighter]

6. From my study of Jesus' teachings...

...I'm almost certain he would not have supported this war (Iraq). Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (the attack on our nation), and there was no evidence at the time of the invasion that Iraq was a dire threat to our nation.

[Hollowkatt]

9. War??

Jesus tells his apotsles to buy weapons because he was a political revolutionary. or as shrub would put it a terrorist. Yes thats right, I just called Jesus a terrorist because to the Roman government he was. As far as war goes, No one would or should support a war of agression against a soverign nation.

[MemphisTiger]

13. Would you call Ghandi a terrorist?

He was a revolutionary, but not a terrorist. Jesus never killed anybody. You need to look that up before you call Jesus a terrorist.

[GumboYaYa]

12. But then later that night when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus,

he instructed the disciples not to attack the soldiers with those swords. Remember the soldier getting his ear cut off and Jesus saying "do this no more", or something like that. I would argue that Jesus's actions tell us far more than a statement that appears solely in the gospel of Luke and most likely is an analogy or a parable from Jesus (to the extent he actually said it) rather than an instruction to arm themselves.

The new testament is replete with examples of Jesus teaching non-violence. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the children of God." That line says it all for me.

[Ravenseye]

19. Luke 22:49-51

49 His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, "Lord, shall we strike with a sword?" 50 And one of them struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said in reply, "Stop, no more of this!" Then he touched the servant's ear and healed him.

Doesn't sound like someone who wanted violence. Someone commited violence in his name and he said Stop.

[MemphisTiger]

34. What about when Jesus entered the temple to drive out the

money changers with a whip? That is not the act of a pacifist.

[Ravenseye]

39. John 2:13-16

13 Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. 15 He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, 16 and to those who sold doves he said, "Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a marketplace."

It never mentions him hitting or injuring them. He 'Drove them all out'. This could easily have been accomplished without touching or hurting anyone with the whip. Are these the actions of a Pacifist either way? He doesn't injure anyone and succeeds in what he was doing. I wouldn't say this is anti-pacifistic.

[MemphisTiger]

42. You don't make a whip for nothing

If He can walk on water, I think He could have made them disappear, but he choose to use a whip.

[Ravenseye]

44. Whip's make noise.

You ever have someone coming up to cracking a whip on the ground and screaming at you? You don't stand there and wait for him to whip you.

As far as being able to do other things...why didn't he? Are you saying that you think Jesus wanted specifically to hurt those people?

[MemphisTiger]

49. I'm not saying anything for Jesus

If he was totally anti-violent, a whip would not have been used. I've never had a person crack a whip at me. I would see it as a violent aggresive action though. I am not speaking as to what Jesus would "have" done.

[Ravenseye]

50. Could Jesus be a Do as I Say, not as I do type?

I'm just thinking out loud here...well...electronically...

Can you think of any other passages where Jesus acts or says something that goes against something he instructed his followers to do?

[bunkerbuster1]

56. the quoted verses mention beasts of burden

he could've cracked the whip to get those beasts to leave, which upset the tables.

Just sayin'. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Jesus beat the crap out of the moneychangers in the temple.

[GumboYaYa]

59. I think that the actual biblical text refers to driving the animals

out of the temple with the whip. I think you will find that text the version of these events relayed in the Gospel of John. If I recall my Bible studies correctly, the money changers did not in fact resist Jesus' attempts to move them from the temple with force. The Bible refers to them asking Jesus for a sign that the things he says are true. In other words they talked to him, not exactly the reaction of a group being forcibly driven from a place with whips. I think that was when Jesus made the quote about building the temple back again in 3 days.

[murray hill farm]

11. I still want to see one of those "god" billboards that says...

WAR? CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? Just what about "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? god

[Ando]

17. geez

How many times must people be reminded that the hebrew word for "kill" used in that passage means "premeditated murder". It's about murder, not killing in general. God himself led Israel into war on numerous occasions. If you're going to argue against the war in Iraq from a Christian perspective, use a valid argument!

[murray hill farm]

57. Says who, bub?

so killing, according to the christian interpretation..or your particular brand of christian interpretation...is OK if it is war or capital punishment? Not mine...not my god...and not my interpretation of "thou shalt not kill"...though i admit it is a convenient interpretation...especially for a war that was premeditated for reasons other than self defense. as it think about what you have said, i also wonder then, is it OK in general according to your interpretation..to kill impulsively or in passion..since it is not done with premeditation?

[Ando]

60. Hold on!

Wow, I think I touched a nerve. I'm not justifying THIS war at all, I was only pointing out that the weight of Jewish and Christian theology goes against your interpretation of "Thou Shall Not Murder/Kill". The orthodox interpretation does not say that all killing is wrong. You're free to be unorthodox though! :)

[murray hill farm]

68. Ha! Yep..slight over reaction..hahahahahaha!

I did not take it real personal, though...its just that i love my "god" sign idea!!

[Warpy]

14. They're Paulists, not Christians, and

most of their "morals" come out of Leviticus. They read the words of Jesus and think he was a wimp and a weakling. They've just stolen his name because it's convenient.

There are Christians out there, and they try to live up to the laws their teacher gave them: to love and respect each other, to attempt to love an absent god, to give generously to the poor, to tend to the sick, and to try to make this world a better place for everyone, not just themselves. This is radical and difficult, and people who attempt it deserve our highest respect.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference, too.

[Hollowkatt]

36. Right!

There are fundamental differences between what christ preached and what paul spread. Jesus was a devout JEW. Yeah read that again, JEW. He would have been ashamed to have started a "new" religion. He was the Hebrew messiah in the literal definition of the word. A military leader blessed by God and chosen to liberate the jew from the yoke of the Romans. And yes, the romans would have viewed that as a terrorist activity. Jesus was crucified, which was the purely roman punnishment for treason and high crimes against the state.

[ThorsHammer]

15. You need to differentiate between DU Christians and theocons

(Not sure if that's the right word, I'm referring to the 'kill em all and let God sort it out' crowd).

Most, if not all Christians here, and many moderate Christians, oppose the war. The other side likely thinks it's part of the whole 'rapture' thing, and that the ME needs to be converted.

[Ravenseye]

20. That's Sort of What I'm Asking

I know that liberal Christians are generally in the right place, but what about those fundies?

How can they be fundamentalist christians and yet totally ignore Jesus' own teachings, while still considering themselves Christian?

[Ando]

23. That's the big question

If you find out the answer, let me know! I can't figure fundamentalist out either. Most are brainwashed, as for the justification for those doing the brainwashing, who knows? I have lots of theories, but not all fundamentalists fit the same mold.

[Ravenseye]

31. That is the big question.

I wish I could respond but I have no clue.

[ThorsHammer]

35. Same here

IMO some are just misguided and swayed too easily by those who are pro-war, while others knowingly support it. The first group might be able to be reached, but the second group is not. I don't know why they believe this, since I'm pretty sure most churches (Catholic, Methodist, etc) have come out against the war.

[ThorsHammer]

37. Addendum - I do think some wars are justified

I'd rather solve problems through more peaceful means, but there are cases where war is the last resort solution. WWII is a good example, as you're not going to be able to talk Hitler into peace. Even Afghanistan wasn't too bad. Needless to say, Iraq has been different.

[Ravenseye]

40. I don't know even about WW2

I'm not arguing that Hitler wasn't evil. I'm just saying that Jesus specifically commanded people to turn the other cheek and treat people like that with kindness.

Sort of a smother evil with kindness as a way to win.

If you dissagree with that assessment and think it's naive, thats fine. You're not a Christian then. I just don't see how anyone can miss the direct commands Jesus made to not be violent in any way shape or form, even to the point of condeming harsh language against others, and then say 'oh well paul said in a letter to the romans' or 'Well Saint Thomas Aquinas did some work on a Just War and he wrote...'

It's all interesting what other people have said, but it seems like for almost two thousand years people have been constantly ignoring Jesus's own words to justify what they want to do which is decidely un-christian.

[ThorsHammer]

43. You are correct

Strictly going by what Jesus said, there could never be a just war. Unfortunately, I don't think that's always practical in the real world, and we may have to use force to protect ourselves or others. In these cases, the Just War theory does help a lot.

[Liberal Veteran]

63. That's my theory for the Pauline Epistle's inclusion in the NT

The fact is that if stopped the NT with the four Gospels then there would be NO BIBLICAL BASIS for a centralized, patriarchal, politically powerful church able to extend its reach onto the masses.

The epistles of Paul however, lay nearly all of the groundwork to pretty much ignore all wishy-washy peace talk of Jesus in favor of the hellfire/brimstone power to the church thing we have going on now.

[Ravenseye]

65. I'd agree with that

So many things in Paul are actually misinterpreted generally, however there are a number of times he does say things which directly contradict things that Jesus was recorded as saying.

[Liberal Veteran]

67. I actually mistrust anything attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

For one thing, many of the epistles appear to have been written by someone other than Paul....but I find it really difficult to believe that Jesus had to do a postscript. Jesus had plenty of time to do exactly what he needed to do while alive. There was no need for that vision on the road to Damascus crap.

[onecent]

16. Saw a bumper sticker the other day and i said ...

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. I had to chuckle.

[TWiley]

21. The fact is that a majority of Christians support the war.

Evidently, the "Christians" gave the bushtapo the "mandate" he desired to prosecute the war in any way he sees fit.

This is the consensus of every major news media.

From this we can conclude that Christians are bloodthirsty as it is they who support the bush-family-war in Iraq.

Sorry, but this is reality. I suggest that your conception of "Christianity" is wrong due to popular usage.

[Ravenseye]

25. Semantics I Stab At Thee!

Well my conception is that most people who call themselves 'Christian' and go to church every week are really not Christian at all. Did you watch the first episode of American Idol last night? There are many people in this country who consider themselves 'Singers' but they really aren't. This is sort of how I see these people. They profess a certain belief system yet totally don't follow it.

Are they hypocrites? Ignorant? Lazy?

[TWiley]

70. Dictionaries routinely update the definitions of words

to reflect changes in common usage.

The problem we have today is primarily with the idea of what a Christian is. Political and economic influences have changed the common usage and the definition needs to be updated to accurately reflect the genuine opinions of the majority of American Christianities followers.

May I suggest "Bloodthirsty", "Conservative", and "vengeful"?

[progressivebydesign]

46. And most of those so called Christians think Muslims are the enemy.

They have no problem with our attacking muslim countries, because they believe in all that "Onward Christian Soldiers" bullshit. Can you imagine the horror and protests if we attacked a Christian nation full of caucasians? Only then would the Christians step up.

[TWiley]

69. Yep, I would say that you have your feet in reality.

With the absence of any contravening fact, this is the only conclusion that a rational person can arrive at.

[Lerkfish]

26. Um, except that Iraq did not strike us in the first place...

I'm a christian and I am against ALL wars, including this one, or especially including this one, based on a lie.

[Zynx]

29. They shouldn't

Christianity is so anti-war that Augustine needed to go through gymnastics to come up with Just War Theory to justify defense against the barbarians - who were directly attacking the civilized world and Church and tended to kill everyone.

Iraq doesn't even meet Just War Theory.

There's a reason all the organized religious denominations - which tend to know what they are talking about - opposed the Iraq war. However, the militant fundamentalist heretics are not organized and not accountable for what they do and say.

[Ravenseye]

32. Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas?

I thought it was Aquinas who came up with the whole Just War thing.

I agree though it doesn't meet the requirements for a 'Just War' even by it's own standards.

Having Just Cause - Nope (No WMD, No Al-Qaeda, No link to 9/11)
Being Declared by a Proper Authority - Nope (No declaration of war)
Possessing Right Intention - Arguably Yes (If the intention was what they claim it to have been)
Having a Reasonable Chance of success - Who knows.
The End Being Proportional to the Means Used - I don't think so.

And this goes past the fact that Jesus was a pacifist.

[saltpoint]

41. If a vegetarian psychotic in 1940s Germany is shoveling --

-- human beings into ovens, you have a very strong case for military intervention.

Diplomacy was tried exhaustively and failed.

Dubya's war is nothing of the kind and was entirely self-generated and deceptively sold. Diplomacy was faked, ridiculed, and abandoned.

I suspect that a lot of fundies are on the Old Testament operating system.

----
edit: typo

[ThorsHammer]

52. Ravenseye, this post sums it up better than mine (nt)

[bobthedrummer]

48. Hypocrites that "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"

Pharisees.

[Wind Dancer]

62. Exactly!

I don't think anybody who believes in peace, love and understanding (regardless of faith) can endorse violence.

Jesus was a radical liberal who spoke out against the corruption of the church and government. It's a shame these so-call Christians have ignored the very thing he taught.

[killbotfactory]

51. Jesus said a lot of things

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-34.htm

"Don't think that I came to send peace on the earth. I didn't come to send peace, but a sword."

[GumboYaYa]

61. That is a gross misuse of that quote.

If you are going to use a quote, you have to give it context to understand the meaning. In context what Jesus is saying is that because of his radical teachings people will rise up against Christians. It is a warning to Christians that they willl suuffer if they follow his teachings.

The only way to argue that Jesus favored violence is to pull quotes out of context. If you actually pay attention to what he is saying without an agenda, it becomes almost impossible to argue that Jesus ever advocated violence.

[Ravenseye]

64. Yet People Try

They pull quotes out of context, or without understanding what they read, and throw them out there.

[Zynx]

71. Indeed.

I can pull quotes out of context from anything and prove anything that I want.

[Liberal Veteran]

73. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones...

...against the stones! - It's in the bible and is a perfect example of how you can one verse out of context. See? God wants us to kill babies!

[killbotfactory]

74. Yeah.

Except he also said those who don't believe in him will be burned forever in hell. I guess we could argue how violent burning for eternity in hell is, but he also as endorsing old testament law, which advocates violence against gays, women, rude children, nonbelievers, etc...

to be fair, he contradicted this later on...

but like I said, he said a lot of things.

[Liberal Veteran]

58. True story: A Church in my area had a sign that read....

"Do the right thing! Take Saddam out!"

This wasn't just any old sign either. It was a professionally printed sign. The back yard of their church actually was by the interstate so, everyone could read their garbage.

[spanone]

72. Many who support the WAR are PRO-LIFERS....go figure.

[bdot]

76. Because war is "OK".

I was arguing with my dad about politics. This is a guy who says that he doesn't like new from the right or the left so he listens to the new from the middle. What is news from the middle? Well to him that is O'Reilly and Limbaugh. *laughs*
Well I was talking about how killing is wrong and the Bible even says that it is wrong. He then replied that there are wars in the Bible so war is ok.
I just had to shake my head and go back to surfing the web.

I think the problem is that the extreme Republicans are stuck in the Old Testament.