What does the Christian Right think of Cindy Sheehan?

I'll concur with Mr. Wade on this one...seems a little heartless to leave a lady in a ditch (if (and a big if) thats what actually happened).

Saying your a Christian ain't do much good if you ain't livin' it.

I think it is much less a question of what the Christian Right thinks of Ms. Sheehan as what she thinks of herself and her son, and what God thinks of her.

Is there anything that needs to be forgiven in either direction between her and the Commander-in-Chief? Should that forgiveness be offered?

Is she praying for her ruling authorities, as Paul and Peter both ask us to? Does she keep in mind that God is a far better judge of then than any of us are?

I do find it curious that Ms. Sheehan had one opinion the first time the President met her, to talk to her about her son's death. Now she apparently has a different opinion, more than a year later. Which one is the better? I do understand why it was easy for the President to meet with her when her son died. I also understand why it might be less of a priority now.

I just wonder why she is now trying to hard to talk with him again. What changed her mind? Did she find a group of people gathering around her to convince her that her son died in vain? Or did she come to this opinion without any help from anyone else?

Amen Dave. And remember what James (the possible "biological" brother of Jesus)said, when he was referring to "proving your Faith". For he said that "Like a body without a soul, Faith without good works is dead". Add to that the fact that President Bush is this lady's EMPLOYEE. He needs to do the decent thing and meet with this lady, and be upfront about his motives for starting a war that has cost so many Iraqi and American lives. And he needs to acknowledge that this war has just made the dark shadow of terrorism SO much darker, and potentially so much more deadly (as we have seen recently in the London bombings, the Lord Mayor of London himself blaming George W for making matters so much worse). There IS a reason why The Master said that it would be the PEACEMAKERS who are called The Children of God. Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

I do find it curious that Ms. Sheehan had one opinion the first time the President met her, to talk to her about her son's death. Now she apparently has a different opinion, more than a year later.

You have been misinformed. Cindy Sheehan has not changed her position, as the original story written about her (and misrepresented by Matt Drudge, Bill O'Reilly, et. al) shows. You can read it right here.

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

In other words, nothing changed her mind. And even if she had, either by herself or by talking to others, so what? People have the right to change their minds. In this case, however, she hasn't.

I don't want to in any way minimize Sheehan's suffering and sacrifice, but I also think that she is trying to milk her son's death to make a political statement. And I find that very sad.

Bush did not force her son to join the military. Her son made this decision as an informed adult, knowing that war is always a possibility, and that whoever was Commander In Chief could send him into any conflict that the USA found herself in. He was 24 years old when he was killed.

Bush is not guilty of anything regarding her son's death, except perhaps using his best informed judgement to try protect us all from devastating terrorist attack. To meet with Sheehan would not provide her any real comfort. She obviously has an agenda, and her questions are rhetorical, not sincere.

This episode reflects poorly on Sheehan. If her son Casey were still alive I think he would probably be embarrassed.

What does upset me, though, is that these sorts of actions, and the publicizing of them, emboldens our enemies and so may result in the deaths of additional Americans. You would not see these sorts of things back in WWII. Even if they happenned they would not be publicized. Sheehan has every right to do what she's doing, but it is foolish and counter-productive. This speaks poorly of her.

"Bush did not force her son to join the military. Her son made this decision as an informed adult, knowing that war is always a possibility, and that whoever was Commander In Chief could send him into any conflict that the USA found herself in. He was 24 years old when he was killed.

Bush is not guilty of anything regarding her son's death, except perhaps using his best informed judgement to try protect us all from devastating terrorist attack. To meet with Sheehan would not provide her any real comfort. She obviously has an agenda, and her questions are rhetorical, not sincere."

Yes, it's all Casey Sheehan's fault! What a stooge he was for actually believing that no President of the United States would send troops into harm's way under false pretenses, in furtherance of an ideological agenda.

"His best informed judgment?" It is, at this point, beyond any rational debate that Bush repeatedly lied to the people of the United States in the lead up to the war. If he had a fact-based case for war, why didn't he make it? Why did he lie about WMD, then about Saddam's non-existent WMD program, and why does he continue to repeat the thoroughly discredited canard about Saddam's non-existent links with Al Qaeda?

At some point, ksm you have to ask yourself whether you are interested in the truth, or in merely serving as a Bush apologist.

"If her son Casey were still alive I think he would probably be embarrassed."

On what evidence do you base that? How do you know what he thought or would think?

See how quickly this has changed from a discussion of sympathy for a mother's sorrow and grief to a discussion of whether or not Bush lied.

See? Like I said, this whole thing is a publicity act for a partisan cause.

Shameless.

Randy -

Regarding your statement "It is, at this point, beyond any rational debate that Bush repeatedly lied"

I strongly contest your statement. Many rational and intelligent people believe that Bush, like every other world leader, honestly thought that Iraq had WMD. They thought this based upon data supplied to them from their intelligence sources. All leading Democrats also believed it and said so - where they lying too?

It is not a lie when you say something that you honestly believe is true, and it later turns out to be false. For you to prove that Bush lied you must go beyond what Bush said and prove that Bush *knew* that Saddam had no WMD when Bush said that Saddam had WMD.

Repeating "Bush Lied!" over and over and over doesn't make it so. Furthermore, if you are proven wrong then you have borne false witness against your neighbor.

Furthermore, WMD was just one of several reasons why we are fighting in Iraq. See the Joint Congressional Resolution the 20 or so other reasons.

GN -

When I said "If her son Casey were still alive I think he would probably be embarrassed." I was careful not to imply a certainty. Note the phrase "I think" and "probably".

This was my opinion, and I tried to make that clear in my word choice. I base my opinion on my rather significant contacts with troops stationed in Iraq. Their morale is generally high and they believe in what they are doing. They are concerned, however, that the public here back in the states is doubtful of the rightness of their mission.

UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq said there was no evidence of WMD or a WMD program, but Bush sincerely believed they were wrong; the CIA AND Joe Wilson told Bush the claim that Saddam was seeking yellowcake in Niger was unfounded, yet Bush sincerely believed they too were wrong, and so made the false claim in his 2002 SOTU address; Condaleeza Rice publicly claimed that tubing shipped into Iraq was being used to build a centrifuge for WMD purposes even though US Department of Energy scientists specifically told the administration that these tubes were singularly unsuitable for use in a centrifuge. I could go on and on. Now, you may be right, and Bush and Rice may have sincerely believed all the things they said in the face of very impressive evidence to the contrary, but that seems rather unlikely, don't you think? And, since I sincerely believe, based on the facts we now know, that Bush was lying, then I'm not bearing false witness, am I? Maybe you, as a Christian, should be a little more circumspect about flinging such accusations.

As for the Democrats: No, they were not lying, merely compliant. In the aftermath of 9/11, they made the mistake of believing Bush and not asking the tough questions that needed to be asked. It was a significant failure on their part, but it was not dishonesty.

One more point, ksm. You wrote: "Bush is not guilty of anything regarding her son's death, except perhaps using his best informed judgement to try protect us all from devastating terrorist attack." When I responded to that by pointing out that Bush lied, you accused ME of turning this partisan. Aren't you being just a tad disingenuous here? YOU impart pure motives and clear thinking to a President you like, and then accuse others of being shamelessly partisan when they respond. Well, someone is being shameless here, but it's not me.

I hate to start another sub-thread before I have a good chance to respond to the last post, but here goes:

The original post says: "So far there seems to be mostly silence from the Christian Right"

Well, here are some responses from conservatives. I don't know if they are actuall "Christian Right" or not:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_8_11_05_0915.html

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003225.htm

http://patterico.com/2005/08/11/3449/la-times-joins-the-crowd-in-distorting-the-cindy-sheehan-story/

and the local town paper, as of 1 year ago: http://www.thereporter.com/republished

KSM,

I am very familiar with right-wingers like yourself. You've learned very well from the demogogues about how to talk about of both sides of your mouth and blast the other side.

You start off your first post by saying that the bereaved woman is milking her son's death. Then you have the gall in your second post to say, "See how quickly this has turned..."

From your postings here, you seem willing to twist yourself into pretzels to defend the right on anything they say and do. Kudos. That is definitely your right. Many of your arguments are even based in facts and represent a fairly moderate image.

On this, you are simply acting as a right-wing echo machine.

Yes, her son volunteered. This does not relieve anyone in the chain of command from using the best intelligence and judgment to protect his life. It does not mean that she cannot protest her son's death. If anything, it means that her son's death is all that more tragic and heroic.

On one hand, I certainly understand why the President won't meet with her. I'll go along and agree that this is a "political stunt" designed to raise awareness. So what?

Would her son approve of her trying to keep other soldiers from dying? As a veteran myself, you better believe he would. This Administration rushed to war while cutting taxes and didn't even bother to let our soldiers slow down long enough to pick up their equipment. That is the shameful truth that cannot be denied by anyone who has even reviewed the facts of the situation.

Eight men from my reserve unit will not ever hold their wives again and their children will now qualify for orphan's benefits. All of this because they were laying sewage and water pipe in Sadr City. Despite the fact that they had been receiving mortar fire regularly, there was not adequate watch posted on the rooftops to sight incoming artillary. Oh well. They volunteered, right? They only got what they deserved! We shouldn't even shed a tear for them and we should never consider a war memorial or read their names on Veteran's Day, should we?

Please, enlighten me as to how a woman sitting in her lawnchair to protest the death of her child is going to, in any way, give aid or succor to our enemy. Please, try and stretch reality so far as to make that connection.

Hi Green Knight

I have to tell you I am that you accuse Cindy Sheehan of "she is trying to milk her son's death to make a political statement". You are accusing her of being a monster. Why not just think she is a grieving mother who is trying to do what she can make it so that other mothers won't have to go through what she has? People do that kind of thing all the time. You see people trying to promote cancer research mentioning the loved one they lost, but you don't complain that they are "milking" their tragedy. It seems to me we owe a break to any mom who lost a child to the war--she has suffered and cynically judging their motives is a sinful violation of jesus' admonition to "judge not, lest you be judged".

Keith

jesus christ is quoted as giving ONE comandment, and this as part of the new covanant between God and humanity.... love one another as i have first loved you.... perhaps george bush has the readers digest condensed version of the bible, and the editors decided that this should be left out. in any case if being a christian means being christlike bush is lying about his faith... period, and sadly he has found it easy to convince many people that being a christian means never questioning him and villianizing those who do.... sad... sad.. sad... perhaps bush also thinks that he'll get an extra jewell in his crown for his war

President George W. Bush is not a Christian. A Christian follows Christ's teaching and has chosen to die to the world to be raised again in the spirit of our merciful, gracious God.

KSM would certainly say, "How would you know this man's heart?" simply answered by his actions.

As a Christian with even the best intentions and assuming God's leading, if I were to determine that I had misrepresented information after the fact that resulted in the death of even one of God's children, I would be on my knees begging my God's forgiveness. I would be begging forgiveness from the family, friends and loved ones of the deceased. Not because I lied (which it seems there is plenty of evidence that George Bush lied) but because of my lack of wisdom and discernment that resulted in even one individual that has been robbed, indirectly by me, of the opportunity to receive the gift of grace that I have received.
George W. Bush should be before Cindy Sheehan right now, begging for her forgiveness on camera or off. Cindy Sheehan should be forgiving George W. Bush on camera or off. And then George Bush should seek our the families of every soldier and Iraqi who was killed or injured and begging their forgiveness.

If you are a Christian and you made a mistake that resulted in the death of one individual, how horrible would you feel? I know that George W. Bush is not a Christian because he does not care and only speaks of grief on camera when it serves his purpose.

I will continue to pray that George W. Bush chooses to return to his Savior and begins a right relationship with God, because the presidency only lasts a few years but the Kingdom of God lasts an eternity, as does damnation which appears to be his current goal.

I agree, I have a very hard time accepting George Bush's faith and for that matter, anyone who can support his style of governing.
I struggle with "Knowing a man's heart” but I cannot reconcile any of this administrations actions with anything "Christian" except of coarse the Hot button rhetoric "Gay Marriage" & "Abortion" designed to mobilize Christians to their Polling places.
I can't help but notice how this administration is not only waging war on so-called "Terrorists" but also on the Poor and Helpless in this country. I would like to know how they justify these actions and I would like them to produce one policy, by the Bush administration that has in mind "Helping" those in need and those weak and helpless in this country.
How bout Terri Schiavo? if ever their was a case of manipulation or milking someones death, that was it. The right turned it into a Media Circus. Now they are accusing Cindy Sheehan of the same thing.
With Cindy Sheehan,the right is using the same tactics as always, discredit and smear individuals, as if that's a Christian value," point out the speck in others eyes" I am wondering when people will get tired of it.
They are are trumpeting her flip flop on her opinion of Bush because they expect everyone to behave like them. "Ignore the facts and support this president regardless of any other information or developments, do not question and hate those who do"

Since the subject of Terri Schiavo has come up, I would like to remind everyone of the case of Sun Hudson, a tiny 5 month old baby who was taken off life-support in a Houston hospital earlier this year. Now, this happened because of a law that was passed in Texas allowing hospitals to make a decision regarding patients they deem are "hopeless" (the real purpose of the law being, of course, to help hospitals stop losing money with such patients). It was a bill passed into law by Bush when he was Governor of Texas. The mother in this case pleaded for her baby's life, but the courts sided with the hospital, and the baby's life ended. "W" was aware of this case. A question and a simple one: Why would he make such a tremendous fuss over another case where the patient had been deemed "hopeless" (and where she had actually requested prior to her coma for life-support to be removed in such a situation), and then totally ignore the other case? Sun Hudson's mother was, by the way, a poor woman who could hardly wage a lengthy court battle to save her son. If "W" is so concerned with babies unborn, what about babies who have been born, but who the state of Texas decides are just too costly for them to maintain?

The question arises again and again about the motives of "W". The question arises, and must be asked, could the many billions of dollars handed out to defense contractors have anything to do with starting the Iraq war? And if this administration's advisors were supposedly so well-versed and well-informed, how did there turn out to be NO WMDs, and how is it that they could not foresee the effects such a war would have on militant Islamic fundamentalists both inside and outside of Iraq. Anyone who knows anything about Islam would understand that such a move would make Islamic terrorism much worse, far from wiping it out(and indeed that is what has happened. The Lord Mayor of London himself after the London bombings blamed "W" for making matters far worse than they had been). And now of course we have an Iraqi government which is being heavily influenced by the Shiites, so oppression of women and minorities will almost certainly continue after the U.S has pulled out its troops out of Iraq (no matter when that is). All these lives, Iraqi and American, lost for what? So that another oppressive Islamic government could be set up in place of Hussein? The Iraq government is already working out how it can "conform" to Islamic Law, and this is the same Law that saw two teenage boys recently tortured and hung in Iran for engaging in gay sex.

That anyone could even dare question the motives of Cindy Sheehan is disturbing. All of these Gold Star Families members have lost loved ones, or have loved ones in danger, and our politicians sit in Washington without any danger to THEIR children. And Cindy Sheehan, after receiving all of the additional information that has come out SINCE she met with "W", might certainly be justified in wanting to clarify a few points that have been brought to light after her first meeting (a meeting in which "W" continued to insult her by addressing her as "mom").

I don't question Ciny Sheehan's motives for a nanosecond. She lost a child in a HIGHLY questionable war, and she wants answers (answers she is unlikely to get because "W" is afraid to meet with her again, aware as he is that she now has a whole new arsenal of questions to batter him with). Well, he is HER EMPLOYEE ( I REPEAT...."W" is her EMPLOYEE), and he needs to be a man and answer those questions.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

I have developed a new website that is opposed to Cindy Sheehan as well as her supporters.

I developed this site to see how many people are supporting the war in Iraq as well as the President.

I invite all who read this to check it out and tell your friends. Who knows it could be a hit.

If it is a hit we will have a good idea how many people are standing by our country and it's ongoing work in Iraq!

www.stopcindysheehan.org

What a sad state this nation is in.

Everything is partisan and political. Mothers cannot grieve without an agenda. Mothers cannot protest the death of a child without an agenda.

Mrs. Sheehan has support from some "unsavory" sources... Michael Moore, et al. So what? Is it so hard to imagine that anti-war activists would stand behind a grieving Gold Star Mother?

When the Schindler family had countless Conservative Demogogues and radical members of the Religious Right stand beside them during the Terri Schiavo fiasco, no one on the Right blinked. Why aren't the demogogues jumping in line to support this mother, when they were tripping all over each other to support the Schindler family?

Hypocrisy is a human condition... unfortunately too many on the Religious Right suffer terminal cases of hypocrisy.

I think Mr. Bush should have to answer to someone about his decision to invade Iraq. The mother of a dead soldier is a good start. If Mr.Bush really believes his reasons are good for staying in Iraq, he should have no problem convincing Mrs.Sheehan.If his reasons for staying in Iraq is because he backed himself in a corner politicaly, he should continue to avoid her.

Matthew 15 NIV (New International Version
21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Cindy Sheehan: “Over 700 People Showed Up At The Camp Yesterday"...
Has Bush been slaped hard enough for lying by Cindy I say NO. Lets give her a big hand for the slaping. How many think Bush is a coward and just a big bully for not meeting Cindy are do you think Bush is singing Cindy oh Cindy please go away. Cindy oh Cindy please don’t ruin my day. Hey Bush a real President would say come and make my day Cindy. Is Bush a better Christian than Jesus the republican think so in fact they act as if he is their God.

Bush is not guilty of anything

I think this pretty much sums up the position of the Christian Right. It's funny that most Protestant Christians have rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception in regard to the Virgin Mary, but are perfectly willing to implicitly apply the same doctrine to the President of the United States. It seems that President Bush can do no wrong, even though St. Paul says that all have fallen short of the glory of God. I'm surprised that Christian Right hasn't tried to amend this verse.

SRS -

You are arguing against a a straw man. I'm pretty well plugged into the Christian Right, and I don't know anyone who thinks that Bush is anything close to perfect.

Though I do know some people on the Left who seem to think that Bush is just one step short from being Satan personified.

Check your sources and assumptions and then put together a cogent argument that supports your position.

Venting is fun, but it only influences people who don't think critically.

Psalm 26 NIV (New International Version)
Vindicate me, O LORD,
for I have led a blameless life;
I have trusted in the LORD
without wavering.
2 Test me, O LORD, and try me,
examine my heart and my mind;
3 for your love is ever before me,
and I walk continually in your truth.
4 I do not sit with deceitful men,
nor do I consort with hypocrites;
5 I abhor the assembly of evildoers
and refuse to sit with the wicked.

This article was copied from the http://www.huffingtonpost.com
For news it is the best I have found Why did they hate America?
by Addison
Sat Jun 18th, 2005 at 13:10:16 PDT
Much ado has been made about how Liberals hurt America with their criticisms of the Iraq war. Here is an outrageously abridged compendium of Republican statements made during the Kosovo War of 1999. Obviously the Iraq war and Kosovo war are quite different in general and in specifics. This diary, however, is about the reaction to war, not the war itself.
These quotes undercut claims that the anti-war left's criticisms of the war, the strategy, and the president constitute proof that we "hate" America. They represent only the tip of the iceberg.
This is an "action" diary. I Googled my way through acres of Kosovo quotes, and I'm rather tired of it. Also, we just got a new cat and I want to play with it. So, Kossacks, use Google to see if your Senator, representative, or your favorite right wing blowhard was against supporting our troops in Kosovo, and then see how far their rhetoric went in undermining our mission there. Again, this isn't about particulars of either war, it's about the hypocrisy.
Any quote you find post below. They will be combined into a person-by-person diary later this week.
· Addison's diary :: ::
·
Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?
"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."
-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Why did they blame America first?
Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage
"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
-Pat Buchanan (R)
"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

Addendum (4.00 / 9)
See also: This fantastic Slate article by Will Saletan and anything said by Rush Limbaugh in March-June of 1999. From the Slate article (which I really implore you to read, it's a targeted version of this diary):
Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

II don't think the Christian right thinks Bush is perfect. They just fill Bush and his gang are the best means to regain power that popular culture has taken from the Church.
They think power is the pathway to Holiness, as if power is the pathway to peace. This is their way at striving to be relevant in popular society. Which does nothing but polarize the population against each other, as if that would be Christ’s agenda.

"The end justifies the Means" seems to be a Christian way of thinking to these people

This seems to be the justification for the war!
"Isn't the World better without Saddam in Power?" As if that makes all the death ok.

The thing that really blows my mind is the concept that Bush's newest reason for going to Iraq is to take the war on terror to Iraq as to minimize death here.
As if the Iraqis are more expendable than us? As if we went to "Liberate" them only to make them fodder for the terrorists. Do they think God is an American and doesn't love Iraqis as well?
Am I the only one that thinks that way of thinking is evil?

I do not think any sane Christian could support this war with all the information that has come out, only a prideful power, hungry one

DL -

I think you need to broaden your sources of information. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be prideful, hungry and willfully ignorant. You seem to question any good-faith intentions of someone who believes the Iraq war is justified and necessary.

If you demonize your opponent without just cause you will prevent yourself from learning anything from them.

Please realize that there are sane and rational people on both sides of this issue. I happen to think, after much examining of the facts as I've been able to assemble them, that the Iraq war was the best course of action open to us given what we knew at the time. And that it can still result in a successful postitive transformation of that region.

I also think that the worse thing we can do is to withdrawl before the Iraqi can defend themselves.

I am beginning to feel that CA's main mission is not so much "to take back Christianity" as it is to serve as a "venting place" so that frustrated leftists can sound off about how much they hate those Christians who are more conservative politically than themselves.

Bash Bush, bash Bush, bash those evil conservatives, denounce those moronic fundamentalists, ridicule those who are not as enlightened as you perceive you are. Accuse them of simpleminded, foolish thinking. Accuse them of making Bush their God (!) Compare them to the Taliban and Nazis. Slander their character and motives!

They couldn't possibly be honest, sincere and excercising logic based upon the facts as they see them. There couldn't possibly be honest disagreement here! They MUST be evil! Spare no one!

I am overstating here somewhat, but I think you get my drift. Too much of this on the Left and on the Right. It's as if the well is poisoned.

I think Jesus weeps at this.

"They will know we are Christians by our love"

James 4 NIV
11Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But ”who are you to judge your neighbor?
17Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.
If you are just telling truth you are Godly now if Bush and the Republican Party is telling lies it is the duty of a Christian too bring the lie out and try to get people telling the lie too atone

KSM

I truly appreciate your desire to increase the civility of the dialogue, and I agree:

"They will know we are Christians by our love"

But why, with your intellectual capacity and faith (as evidenced in your posts), would you allow yourself to endorse the death of thousands of Americans, coalition forces and Iraqis to form a new Islamic Republic (as is the current process in the Iraqi constitutional assembly)?

As a Christian, do you truly believe that the death of a single innocent Iraqi child is justified by the rhetoric espoused by our administration?

You said Cindy Sheehan has an agenda, and her questions a rhetorical rather that sincere. President Bush has ordered the execution of a lot of God's children in his rush to war based, as we know it now, on rhetoric alone. And yet you would disqualify the questions of a grieving mother with an agenda, but not disqualify the actions of a "Christian" commander-in-chief with far more grave consequences?

Stop using Republican Talking points to make your case...start using the teachings of Christ to explain to me how a Christian delivers death to children, then ties his nations flag to the cross of our Savior and then asks us to salute the flag which obscures the cross it is tied to.

I love you Brother, but you and the Christians supporting President Bush are being used, and quite frankly, you're being kind of silly too.

John McCain speaks:

"Look, I've been with the president of the United States when he has met with the families of those brave young men and women who have sacrificed. I have seen his compassion, I have seen his love, I have seen his concern. So any charge of insensitivity or uncaring on the part of this president, is absolutely false. He cares and he grieves. . . . I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I have seen him grieve. And I'm sure he wouldn't like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved. And that's the job of the president of the United States. He fully appreciates the tragedy of the loss of these brave young Americans."

KSM

Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

What happened too Jesus Christ you and Bush was so Christian yesterday but now you have seemed too have forgotten the Bible or is John McCain your new Phrofett, how come you Republicans didn’t vote for him if his word is so great and he knows so much

KSM:

Liberal Christians are the ones that are driving wedges?

Give me a break.

I spent the majority of the last thirty years of my life in churches that were taken over by Conservatives and immediately became incredibly hostile to liberals. I've been denounced from the pulpit because of my stance on race relations and been told in no uncertain terms that I simply wasn't Christian because I disagree about the literal truth of every word of scripture.

If you want to feel persecuted, that's your pity party. Don't look for anyone to suddenly act like it's true, though.

XT

I to have been driven from Church by right wing conservatives. I was literally confronted by violence when on a Mission trip when I questioned George Bush and voiced the opinion that Ronald Regan was not the greatest president.
In my church home the pastor started preaching George Bushism's and his support for anything George Bush after his election, I had a meeting with him and told him I was being alienated by his political rhetoric from the pulpit. He said "So What"
I haven't been a member of a Church since
And this is a sign of furthering God's grace?
Who’s driving a wedge?

KSM- I do broaden my sources of information, I listen to both sides quite frequently. I do not consider myself a conservative or a liberal. I have even been confronted, as your are now on this site. I even voted for George Bush the first time. But when he went into Iraq he lost me, and every suspicion and doubt came true, and I was not wanting it to be true. I was not seeking the facts to confirm my beliefs. The Christian right and their what I think of as “Kool –Aid” drinking mentality as done nothing but push me further and further away.

Do you think I want to be alienated from any church family? It's agonizing for me.
I really do not want to believe Bush and right wing Christians are hypocrites but rational thought and an open mind deny my belief in the Bush or the Christian rights doctrine.

Well, it looks like the religious right has found this website and planted operatives. I'm sorry to sound political but I can't believe some of these postings. Vilifying a grieving mother who justifiably wants answers, regardless of how logical, authoritative, and civil those smears appear to be, flies in the face of the gospels.

While I must, as a Christian, accept differences of opinion, the idea that even on a website dedicated to countering the religious right, they can high-jack the discourse makes me think that there's a need for a group like this. Perhaps, their input needs to be monitored. If it were really about free discussion, fine, then everyone should participate, but canting the Christian right line is not helpful to our cause. Tolerance has limits. Even Jesus got fed up with capitalism in the Temple.

As aggravating as KSM's comments are, I refer the readers back to the title of this thread - "What does the Christian Right think of Cindy Sheehan?". In KSM we apparently have a member of that group speaking to us directly about what he (she?) believes. And we're complaining about it? Odd.

I think the better thing to do is to note his comments, engage him if you feel you can do so productively and with Christian love, and hold your tongue if you can't. I also would avoid any temptation to score points. I doubt if you're going to change his mind, and you don't need to convince the rest of us.

It seems inappropriate for this thread, since it's about what *they* think, but for other threads the best thing to do is what you usually do with rude, unwelcome guests at a party - ignore them and eventually they'll get bored and leave.

WHile I don't subscribe to everything at the particular site I am about to share a link with, I do think that it provides a valuable "different point of view" regarding Cindy Sheehan that people should be aware of:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45800

Read it, seperate the hay from the stubble, and let any facts (and there are some important ones there) you find further illuminate your search for truth.

The WorldNetDaily is one of the most biased right-wing attack rags in existence. Every single article I've ever examined from them I have found to be shoddily reported and slanted so badly that it would be condemned if it was a building.

I think I found out why you have trouble with reality.

XT

Ksm-

I visted your link, and tried to have an open mind.
Two things really bothered me
#1
"CAMPED OUT IN CRAWFORD
Cindy's husband
seeking divorce
Patrick Sheehan files paperwork to split from anti-Bush protester"
-I fail to see how this is relevant and warrants a headline? and it seems to be the general drift of the site in my opinion based on personal attacks and not alot of facts. It seemed most of the reference links were to their own site?
#2
"It's gotten to the point now where it is common to go on Democrat websites and read about the pleasure it would bring if the president were assassinated"
Rush Limbaugh
This was a main feature in your linked article.
Since when is this crack addict and authority on anything except scoring oxyicotin in Florida? (Sorry, I really dislike this man)I did some searching on "Democratic" web sites and failed to find any reference to harming the President
Please check this link:
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=The%20Rush%20Limbaugh%20Show
and this one:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

She's in the ditch by choice, not necessity. Why is it the President's job to get her out of the ditch? All she has to do is stand up and leave.

Why is it "W"s job? Because he is her EMPOLYEE. He is an EMPOLYEE of the people of the United States, and contrary to how a great many (most) conservatives refer to him, he is NOT a king or a demi-god. He is a politician, and one that has done his damndest to hand out as much money to the wealthiest Americans and the corporations as he possibly can, while the poor get poorer, over 40% of Americans can't afford Healthcare, the banks and insurance companies run rampant, as do the doctors and the hospitals, and numerous other "upper-class" sources continue feeding on the lower middle-class and the poor. And he has started a war which is NOT going to bring "democracy" to Iraq, but we see now is almost certainly going to see a government conforming to strict Islamic Law, which means women and minorities can kiss their rights good-bye. AND no matter when we leave they'll almost certainly have a civil war. And all of those Iraqi people and all of those Americans died for THIS?

Christians are required to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is LITERALLY (let me repeat that, LITERALLY) their God AND THEIR KING. To worship "W" the way many conservatives do is a form of blasphemy. We've gotten to the point now that if you dare to question "His Majesty's" decisions or his motives or his lack of concern for The Least Of These, you are somehow UnAmerican. I've witinessed it and experienced it firsthand. It smacks of the McCarthyism, and it smacks of Soviet Communism, and it smacks of The Third Reich.

Does that answer your question CJ?

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

"She's in the ditch by choice, not necessity. Why is it the President's job to get her out of the ditch?"

It's not. But since he is the policy maker who started the war of choice in which her son died, basic human decency dictates that answer her questions. His refusal to do so while "getting on with his life" betrays his utter lack of basic human decency.

CJ

Bush wanted the war he was advised not to go to war but he did it is the Bush war
Bush dug the war ditch now let Bush pay for it in shame and he now owns over 1800 dead
Exodus 21 NIV
33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.

Monte:

There you go again, misquoting Scripture.

Rich Keller
The quote was copied off the web and there is a book chapter and verse check them out. the other wording is called a parallel other words they follow along the same line but they mean the same just diferant words

It was just recently that I moved away from being part of the "conservative right" and took a more radical approach to politics. Radical only in the sense that Jesus was a radical. I once thought that the "narrow road" of being a Christian was narrow only because the moral code we were to follow wasn't the easy way. I now realize that it's narrow because the lifestyle we are called to live is crazy. Before Jesus we were told not to commit adultery, after Jesus not to even lust in our hearts. Before Jesus we were told not to kill, after Jesus we were told not even to hate. What if...what if rather than waging war on terror we forgave the terrorists and tried to restore a relationship? What if we put the billions of dollars we have pumped into the war into feeding and clothing the children of our struggling neighbors? What if Christians truly lived as Christ did? We may end up being seen as victims on this earth but at least we would accurately represent the Christian faith. I encourage all of you who are Christians to really look at Jesus' life as a model of how we should interact with the world and within our own culture. The simple answer is that we need to love without boundaries and I think that expresses how Cindy Sheehan should be treated.

[URL=http://fxdanphf.com]fiolykjb[/URL] qkzcwmxg http://ppibqumz.com fpqhoooy xqdkvuxm wawvtyqa

hyuouilh [URL=http://upfevehj.com]tmrbvfjt[/URL] qglzscpy http://wvaxfltd.com ekexizfj hubyoqbc