Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Reading this, the irony is that a Christian Fundamentalist President of the United States set in place a sequence of events that has decimated the Iraqi Christian community.

Maybe with AQI gone, the Sunni and Shia will have the church rebuilt and the Christians return in the fairy tale ending. Somehow I doubt this will happen. Nice job George W. Maybe W can try using his wildly firing brain cells a bit harder the next time he tries strategery. Iran's Christian and Jewish communities will, I'm sure, be happy to know he is thinking harder this time.

Posted by Offside at September 27, 2007 12:33 PM

It's nice to see that efforts to vilify Al Qaeda have finally taken root. I see as a possible outcome that Al Qaeda gets booted from Iraq (aside from low grade terrorism) and everyone pretends they weren't shooting at each other a year before. It would be far from perfect, since a lot of ethnic cleansing is going to be ignored.

Still there's an awful lot of follow through that needs to be done.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at September 27, 2007 12:52 PM

Offside,

What did GWB do to you, so that you are so personally scornful of him? Did he steal your wife and / or kill your favorite hunting dog?

The United Methodists are not at all a "fundamentalist" strain of Christianity. I wouldn't expect you to know the distinction -- ignorance has never stopped you before.

Arab Christians have been leaving the lands of Islam for centuries. The latest departures coincide with the American presence, but they are not caused by it.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 02:07 PM

MG,

I occasionally attend services at a Methodist Church. I know what Methodists are and Bush is no Methodist.

Bush is so far removed from Wesley that it is absurd to consider him a follower. Also check out what the UMC thinks of the Iraq war.

Posted by Offside at September 27, 2007 04:33 PM

MG, some references, before and after:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175245,00.html

Posted by Offside at September 27, 2007 05:01 PM

Offside,

I didn't ask you about the UMC's position. I asked you why you are so scornful. Do you care to reply directly to my question?

You claim to be UMC, so you should know the difference between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist. Wanna take a shot at putting into this comment thread?

Finally, if the UMC position on the war is the arbiter on whether someone is or is not UMC, then I suspect a lot of UMC members will need to leave.

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 05:43 PM

Is this good enough?

http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/transcript-reveals-impeachable-offenses.html

Posted by at September 27, 2007 07:13 PM

What did GWB do to you, so that you are so personally scornful of him?

Lose a war.

Posted by at September 27, 2007 08:23 PM

Lose a war.?

The war is not lost, but it could be, if attitudes like yours prevail, anonymous coward. One suspects that that is in fact your goal.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 27, 2007 08:28 PM

I thought you *wanted* him to "lose" the war...

Oh, and I'd have to be excommunicated, too. I'm a lifelong member of the United Methodist Church.

Posted by Big D at September 27, 2007 08:34 PM

I thought you *wanted* him to "lose" the war...

They have been scoring touchdowns in the wrong end zone since the day that the entered Baghdad. If Bush did what he thinks is losing, it would be a win for America.

Posted by at September 27, 2007 08:43 PM

Also, it's always the incompetents and charlatans who respond to criticism with, "You want me to fail! You wish! You're jinxing me! You're working against me!" The only good answer to that kind of talk is, "You're fired!"

Posted by at September 27, 2007 09:09 PM

Rand,

" " is obviously referring to Vietnam, since the current war isn't over yet.

I just can't figure out how a junior F-102 pilot could be responsible for losing Vietnam, when it was the Democrat Congress that did it.

" ",

Juan Cole can write whatever he wants. In this particular article, he can "in his judgment" reach whatever conclusion he wants. The actual article, however, does not support his assertions.

Nice try, and thanks for your honesty about your scorn for our President. Your mask slipped long ago, but it is refreshing when you remind us what you really look like.

Offside,

You wanna respond to my question to you about the President? How about the meaning of "fundamentalist", and justifying your application of the term to our President?

Posted by MG at September 27, 2007 09:27 PM

The current war isn't over yet.

You can conclude that a train wreck in slow motion is a setback long before it's over.

Posted by at September 28, 2007 06:59 AM

You can conclude that a train wreck in slow motion is a setback long before it's over.

Yes, you can, though that is a total non sequitur in the context of this discussion. No surprise, considering the anonymous idiotic source.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 28, 2007 07:08 AM

Rand,

I think the word you seek is not "idiotic", but "sophomoric".

" " can replicate the formal attributes of dialog, but appears unable to produce the actual substance of dialog.

'Tis a pity, an all too common pity.

Posted by MG at September 28, 2007 07:29 AM

MG,

Clearly the use of the term fundamentalist to describe Bush is of concern to you. I use the term in the sense that Bush believes he is being personally directed by God in his actions, in his violation of collective Christian principles such as the theological basis for a just war, absolving his actions through personal revelation, and his and his parties manipulation of Christianity to serve ends that are far from the teachings of Jesus.

Incidentally, I am a Presbyterian. I simply happen to occasionally attend UMC services. Not that it should matter, but just so you can be corrected in your assumption above.

It is laughable that you can state, poker faced, that "Christians have been leaving the lands of Islam for centuries" to save face in the light of the Christian refugees streaming out of Iraq. If so, Bush certainly has moved it along quite a bit. If he had practiced Christian principles instead, he might have won hearts to Christ in the so-called lands of Islam. Instead of which the essence of Christianity, which is love, has been replaced by violence.

Posted by Offside at September 28, 2007 07:57 AM

I use the term in the sense that Bush believes he is being personally directed by God in his actions, in his violation of collective Christian principles such as the theological basis for a just war, absolving his actions through personal revelation, and his and his parties manipulation of Christianity to serve ends that are far from the teachings of Jesus.

I'm not a Christian, or even a theist, but if you believe these fantasies, you've been living on a different planet than I have for the past six-plus years.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 28, 2007 07:59 AM

I use the term [fundamentalist] in the sense

...that no serious person would.

Posted by McGehee at September 28, 2007 08:38 AM

you've been living on a different planet than I have for the past six-plus years.

That's actually true. And at least for the past two years, so have most Americans.

Posted by at September 28, 2007 09:14 AM

It seems exceedingly unlikely that "most Americans" would agree with the absurd caricature of the Bush administration, or definition of "fundamentalism" provided by "Offside." You certainly present no evidence for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 28, 2007 09:26 AM

Mr. Offside,

Since you bring theology and religion into this discussion, you need to apply the historically rigorous terminology. You don't get to redefine these terms to suit your purposes.

The other doctrinal terms in your post have specific meanings. Laxity in "fundamentalism" suggests laxity elsewhere.

Here is a hint for you:

GWB = the Good Samaritan
You = Pharisee

Got it?

Posted by MG at September 28, 2007 01:20 PM

It seems exceedingly unlikely that "most Americans" would agree with the absurd caricature of the Bush administration

Most Americans do by now see the Iraq war as a train wreck in slow motion. That is the basic question that separates Earth from Planet ultra-Republican and its satellite Neolibertariana.

The majority of Americans may not have settled on Offside's description of why it has all gone wrong, but he's basically right. Bush does think that God is on his side. He said once, before he was elected, that he thought God wanted him to be president. This goes a long way towards explaining his arrogance; you cannot tell a man that he's wrong if "God" already told him that he's right. It is also true that the Iraq war is a betrayal of Christianity. For one thing, it is the worst thing that has happened to Iraqi Christians in a hundred years. For another, no true Christian would legalize murder, but that is exactly what the Bush Administration did when they exempted Blackwater from both American and Iraqi law.

Posted by at September 28, 2007 04:41 PM

" ",

"It is also true that the Iraq war is a betrayal of Christianity."

Your understanding of Christianity appears to be roughly on par with that of Offside.

If you care to joust on the Christian inter-relationships of scripture, tradition, reason, and revelation, you know where to find me.

Posted by MG at September 28, 2007 09:04 PM

Your understanding of Christianity appears to be roughly on par with that of Offside.

You don't need a seminary degree to know that it's un-Christian to refuse visas to people who have fled Iraq for their lives just because they are Christians. It is monumentally un-Christian to just tell them to go home because "we" are "winning", when they know full well that savages are at them. You only need to read a few passages of the Bible to know that that is the way of the Pharisees.

Posted by at September 28, 2007 09:26 PM

"just because they are Christians."

Is that why they are refused visas? Because of a religious test?

Is it possible they have been refused visas, and they happen to (claim to) be Christians?

-----------

Even if everything you claim in this post is factual, your complaint is against the immigration official who has said "no". There are plentiful means to overcome a bureaucrat's decision. For example:

Petition Congress to direct the executive branch to issue visas to these people, by a specific date.

Just think... if our President is as you apparently believe him to be, the Democrats should be DELIGHTED to pick a fight with him over this.

If they don't, what does that say about the Democrats?

-----

Finally, I rather doubt that you are the arbiter of what constitutes Christianity, or Christian behavior.

The closest thing we humans have to such an arbiter is the Pope, and only when he speaks "ex cathedra". In the Orthodox tradition, I am unsure whether there is any comparable arbiter.

Posted by MG at September 29, 2007 07:40 AM

Post a comment