Forced to be Christian

[CrazyAnglican]

Not so idealistic. It has begun in South Africa, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina, Cuba, and Peru just to mention a few places.

Oh very well,

South Africa, you have cleverly shown the involvement of Anglican Church officials and other religious people and organizations in bringing that about (which doesn't support your idea that the Churches want to keep the powerless down). Archbishop Desmond Tutu ring a bell for you? He was the chair of the South Afrcian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the commission itself met at several churches among their other venues.

South America, you've also mentioned liberation theology which further drives a stake through the heart of your supposition that the churches are uninvoved with empowering the poor. It's still liberation theology, isn't it? They haven't changed the name to secular liberation theory?

Cuba? Are you serious? Does the Marialito boat lift ring a bell to you? Can you produce any evidence that any significant number of people want to defect to that utopia?

Arbitrary detention
Harassment of political dissidents, independent journalists and critics for carrying out dissident activities or reporting on the human rights situation in Cuba continued. Some were detained for 24 or 48 hours and then released; others were held for months or even years awaiting trial.

Between 21 November and 10 December many political dissidents were arbitrarily detained because of their involvement in peaceful protests. The detentions lasted for short periods of time and were aimed at discouraging demonstrations against the government, particularly on 10 December, International Human Rights Day. At least three people remained detained at the end of the year.
On 27 September, 48 people were detained in Havana as they were preparing to attend a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Justice to demand fair treatment for political dissidents. Some were released later that day and others on the following day

Yes, apparently some people are better at googling, or at least we read the information in the webpages. You've not cited a single source, that I've seen, that didn't end up blowing up in your face. I'm beginning to understand your reluctance to support your case with any evidence. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support your case.

Here is some idealism for you. Again with Archbishop Tutu is participating in a group called The Elders to work for the abolition of torture among many other causes on behalf of the World's poor and oppressed.

http://theelders.org/
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-upda ... e-20080605

Well, some are better gogglers than others. It is a skill, and the more you do it the better you get.

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with some googling of your own? The generalities that you're spouting don't hold up to scrutiny, but by all means keep up the criticism. I knew the Christian Churches were commited to bringing about positive changes in the world through work with the poor and oppressed, but your own sources make them look good.

Look, religion by itself has done more good in the last 100 years then secular government has in the last 200. Yes yes, people who claimed to be Christian 500 years ago or 700 years ago did some pretty bad things, but to say that giving people a chance to live rather then just shooting them sounds a step above what secular governments have done in recent times. Yet you and others, it seems, turn a blind eye to that and still try to insist that things from centuries ago, where policies, thoughts, morals, and ethics were far different from what they are now, hold merit to things that people who are still alive remember and had to live through. You brush that aside and only see it as "the man getting what he deserved."

Well spoken as always MTG. I think neither of us are claiming that Christians are innocent, we're just choosing to take a broader perspective, than that which is commonly shown around this forum, when atrocities are mentioned. THere is substantial evidence to suggest that secular governments are responsible for more human rights violations than religious institutions. When a secular government goes bad, they typically have a well equipped standing army and can tax their populace. Religions typically rely on donations and I've seen no budget among any Christian orgainzation for investment in weapons technology. The most that can be thrown our way recently is that lots of them voted their conscience, and small groups of extremeists have done such-and-such, which most mainstream Christians abhor.

[joecoolfrog]

The best way to prevent atrocities is to empower those without power, in short, a revolution that eliminates the absurd dominance of the elite in this world. Unfortunately, most church leaders strive to be part of the elite, or at least it apologists.

Oh, you mean like the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Or like the Communist Takeover in China in the late 1940s? Or like the Reign of Terror in France after the Royal Family was guillotined? Each of these, along with many others in the last 100 years alone fit this little "best way to prevent atrocities" idea of yours, yet in turn, each and every one of these has racked up the body count just as much, if not more so then the "old absurdly powerful elite" did before them.
Religious groups and churches in these areas had to go underground for years, decades even until pressure from the outside world made them let up on religious groups, or the "new" powers just crumbled. China for instance has around 20 million Catholics alone, but even so, just a couple decades ago, if one wasn't openly Atheist, then they were either kept under 24/7 surveillance, sent out into slave labor, or disappeared altogether. Come to think of it, many secular governments that had this revolution were similar, if not the same as China was.
Look, religion by itself has done more good in the last 100 years then secular government has in the last 200. Yes yes, people who claimed to be Christian 500 years ago or 700 years ago did some pretty bad things, but to say that giving people a chance to live rather then just shooting them sounds a step above what secular governments have done in recent times. Yet you and others, it seems, turn a blind eye to that and still try to insist that things from centuries ago, where policies, thoughts, morals, and ethics were far different from what they are now, hold merit to things that people who are still alive remember and had to live through. You brush that aside and only see it as "the man getting what he deserved."

Its always people 'who claim to be Christian '....you are including a good number of Cardinals and Popes I trust You also seem to forget that much of the current strife in the World is linked with religion, Afghanistan,Indonesia, India, Iraq, Iran.Israel.Nigeria,Sudan....sure politics and power play a part but so did they with Stalin and Mao so lets have some consistency. Religion does not make one evil or bloodthirsty but power corrupts and the Church had immense power in the Middle Ages, many abused their positions and its daft to try and justify it .

[CrazyAnglican]

Its always people 'who claim to be Christian '....you are including a good number of Cardinals and Popes I trust

Absolutely, humans are human. I think what MTG was saying was that the people who were acting on behalf of the Church to commit atrocities couldn't be said to be following the teachings of Christ very closely-as an understatment. Christian just means "Christ-like" in the sense that we, as a body, should aim to imitate Christ. The people that advocated torture, et. al. weren't doing that, but were claiming to.

[joecoolfrog]

Its always people 'who claim to be Christian '....you are including a good number of Cardinals and Popes I trust

Absolutely, humans are human. I think what MTG was saying was that the people who were acting on behalf of the Church to commit atrocities couldn't be said to be following the teachings of Christ very closely-as an understatment. Christian just means "Christ-like" in the sense that we, as a body, should aim to imitate Christ. The people that advocated torture, et. al. weren't doing that, but were claiming to.

I think this is the crux of the problem, there are an awful lot of people ( past and present )
who claim to be following Christ but have acted in a most un Christian way. A perfect example is to be found on this forum in the shape of a very vocal 16 year old who professes to being a devout Roman Catholic yet talks and behaves in a manner that I doubt Christ would welcome
Nobody in their right mind should have a problem with any individual who simply strives to follow the moral imperative of Christianity, its what has so often been done in its name that worries many of us.

[CrazyAnglican]

Nobody in their right mind should have a problem with any individual who simply strives to follow the moral imperative of Christianity, its what has so often been done in its name that worries many of us.

It's certainly a valid worry. Neither MTG nor I have claimed that Christians are innocent, but the discussion all too often centers around misconduct of Christians, who have not followed the teachings of Christ closely, and excludes the misconduct of anyone else who may have commited equal or greater atrocities. Hence, it's an imcomplete picture.

In moving on, though, the teachings themselves can't be held accountable for the people who did/do not follow them. What we have are people who use the name of those teachings to invoke others to behave in a manner that disregards the actual doctrine. Yes, that has occurred (and appears to be all that the OP is interested in talking about on the subject). On the other hand, there are far more people who use those teachings as a springboard to bring about positive changes quite in line with the actual teachings of Christ (which appears to be the part that the OP would like to brush aside).

[mpjh]

Actually, it has been the misconduct of people in power using religion, whether christian or not, to claim the right to destroy another people. After all, in their view, if god is on their side, how can they be wrong? Most recent example is W.

[CrazyAnglican]

Actually, it has been the misconduct of people in power using religion, whether christian or not, to claim the right to destroy another people. After all, in their view, if god is on their side, how can they be wrong? Most recent example is W.

Again, where has GW claimed the right to destroy a people? That's genocide and even the most ardent anti-war activists don't claim that's going on. It's a war, that's all. Not to mention the Churches haven't been rallying around the "God told me, so" statement, and people aren't running to join up saying "If God told GW to lead us to war, I'm there!". This most recent example of yours, by a secular leader to use the idea of God as one of the reasons to go to war is weak at best. As you stated earlier, two churches have actually denounced it and none endorse it that I'm aware of. It's only a little more credible than Saddam Hussein calling for a Jihad in 1991, with the rest of the Arab World scratching their heads in confusion saying "Wait a minute, you invaded Kuwait and now that the US is your new neighbor, you want a jihad".

[mpjh]

Ahhh, that is the misconduct.

[CrazyAnglican]

Vague retort

Ahhh, that is the misconduct.

Equally vague retort:

Ah, seems to be running out of steam.

[mpjh]

Ok, I misunderstood your question. W brought up the right to destroy people when he tried to justify the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. Subsequently, he has caused the deaths of over a million civilian, destroyed both countries infrastructure, schools, hospitals, sewage systems, and environment.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ok, I misunderstood your question. W brought up the right to destroy people when he tried to justify the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. Subsequently, he has caused the deaths of over a million civilian, destroyed both countries infrastructure, schools, hospitals, sewage systems, and environment.

So now it's destroy "people" and not destroy "a people"? Okay, but anyone who advocates going to war for any reason does that. The dubious part is whether the "God told me so" argument flies with most of the American people. It obviously doesn't with you or with me, yet we're there. Hence, as it's not widely pubicized and no Christians that I've run into even seem to know about it, it doesn't seem to be a prime motivating factor in the conflict.

[mpjh]

Now you are quibbling. Well, now you are continuing to quibble and trying to trivialize the death of over a million innocent people.

[CrazyAnglican]

How is looking into the possible motivations for their deaths quibbling or trivializing the event? By contrast you are apparently locking onto one piece of the puzzle rather than the entirety of the issue.

Simply put, The statement about God telling GW to take us to war doesn't seem to be a big motivator for any of the Christians I've run into. I haven't heard any of them mention it; I've actually never heard anyone mention it at all other than you. You say it happened, and I don't dispute it. I've never heard of it, that's all. The problem is that for it to be a motivating factor for religious people to go to war, we would have had to have:

A: heard it
and
B: believed that it were true.

I'm sure there probably are some that fit that bill, but my observations indicate otherwise. There certainly haven't been any people jumping in on our conversation with statements to support the notion that GW has a direct line to God on this issue. It doesn't appear to be backed up by anything I've studied about the religion therefore I'm not responding to his rhetoric. I see it as propaganda, nothing more.

To suggest that your opposition is trivializing the deaths of millions is a little dehumanizing. Especially when I've given no justification for any atrocity. I'm merely suggesting that your hope to pin the Iraqi conflict squarely on the shoulders of Christianity is taking a narrow view of the topic and leaving a great many factors out. It also appears to be an attempt to shift the discussion back to all the bad things Christians do, while trivializing the good a greater number of them do and completely ignoring the bad things that anone other than a Chrstian does. That seems to be trivializing atrocities, or are you prepared to conceed that people have commited heinous crimes in the name of secular governments?

[mpjh]

A million innocent deaths against the "greater good," what hubris!

If you don't think people went there for the crusade, just listen to the atheist soldiers who report on the oppressive christian pressure to pray at meals, and the sarcastic remarks made to these atheists after a battle questioning their non-belief. Clearly many soldiers in Iraq consider this a christian against muslim war. I think you only need look at the ultimate leadership to see why.

[CrazyAnglican]

A million innocent deaths against the "greater good," what hubris!

You're not even reading the posts are you. Go back and cite where I said anything about that. You can't because I didn't.

If you don't think people went there for the crusade, just listen to the atheist soldiers who report on the oppressive christian pressure to pray at meals, and the sarcastic remarks made to these atheists after a battle questioning their non-belief. Clearly many soldiers in Iraq consider this a christian against muslim war. I think you only need look at the ultimate leadership to see why.

I see let's listen to the atheists to find out what the Christians think. They have all the answers, Eh? How widespread is this anyway? You've certainly invited us to believe that it's pervasive, but you've done nothing to substatiate the claim. Once again, let's try to jump back to the evil Christians and their sarcasm and belief that people should pray. Get real, if that's atrocity you have no concept of the word. If it's Christian against Muslim it seems we're not doing a wonderful job of setting up a Christian government in Iraq or Afghanistan. If one fights a war against a group of people, it makes little sense to leave them in power when you leave. The plan is to leave the Muslims in power in their respective countries, but to leave a democratic form of government. On that level, the war is most decidedly secular.

[brooksieb]

A million innocent deaths against the "greater good," what hubris!

If you don't think people went there for the crusade, just listen to the atheist soldiers who report on the oppressive christian pressure to pray at meals, and the sarcastic remarks made to these atheists after a battle questioning their non-belief. Clearly many soldiers in Iraq consider this a christian against muslim war. I think you only need look at the ultimate leadership to see why.

Aww yeah, i literally bow down to your superior athiest views and my inferior christian views are not needed in this new world. I want to see proof, i have never served in the 2003- Iraq war, i did however, serve in many different Muslim countries and christian countries, some of which include Iraq, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Kosovo, at mealtimes i always considered a short prayer a good prayer, if people who were not religious did not want to pray, they could be excused, obviously it probably happened in other camps but i never saw it as a christian - muslim war, i considered it a war to get the job done, whatever that may be, The coalition forces include Turkish soldiers, which are muslim, that would be a double standard if it was a muslim - christian war, this is utter bullshit.

[CrazyAnglican]

The coalition forces include Turkish soldiers, which are muslim, that would be a double standard if it was a muslim - christian war, this is utter bullshit.

Good point brooksieb,

It's a Christian vs. Muslim Crusade (except for the Muslims who are fighting alongside us and the ones we are trying to help in their attempts to start a democratic government), otherwise the lines are perfectly drawn.

[brooksieb]

The coalition forces include Turkish soldiers, which are muslim, that would be a double standard if it was a muslim - christian war, this is utter bullshit.

Good point brooksieb,

It's a Christian vs. Muslim Crusade (except for the Muslims who are fighting alongside us and the ones we are trying to help in their attempts to start a democratic government), otherwise the lines are perfectly drawn.

I think it's Democracy VS Facist Dictatorships, the 'free' vs the 'unfree'.

[CrazyAnglican]

I think you'd have a much easier time arguing that point, the evidence for it being a crusade seems to amount to a supposed conversation GW had with God and the word of some soldiers who happen to be atheists and whose actual words we haven't been allowed to hear.

[mpjh]

Bush called it a crusade during a press conference at the beginning of the war. He said god told him to do it during a face to face interview with a main stream media anchor last year.

Also:

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

[DaGip]

Bush called it a crusade during a press conference at the beginning of the war. He said god told him to do it during a face to face interview with a main stream media anchor last year.

That's some scary shit! I've been hearing the same voices!

[mpjh]

Also:

He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Another telling sign of Mr Bush's religion was his answer to Mr Woodward's question on whether he had asked his father - the former president who refused to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq after driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 - for advice on what to do.

The current President replied that his earthly father was "the wrong father to appeal to for advice ... there is a higher father that I appeal to".

[mpjh]

In September 2001,

On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

[Snorri1234]

The coalition forces include Turkish soldiers, which are muslim, that would be a double standard if it was a muslim - christian war, this is utter bullshit.

Good point brooksieb,

It's a Christian vs. Muslim Crusade (except for the Muslims who are fighting alongside us and the ones we are trying to help in their attempts to start a democratic government), otherwise the lines are perfectly drawn.

I think it's Democracy VS Facist Dictatorships, the 'free' vs the 'unfree'.

Nah, it's Coporate Dictatorship VS Fascist Dictatorship. It's about money and power.


Democracy and freedom are somewhere at the bottom, just under religion.

[mpjh]

It is about oil, and the christian fundamentalists are riding that horse just as hard as they can.