I am totally against any "confrontational" actions against any country, including Iraq and Iran, but not limited to just those countries.
The President's political, fear-mongering tactics are no different than what the fundamentalist Christians and the fundamentalist Muslims preach - or, for that matter, what any fundamentalist attitude preaches. The idea that fear and violence must be used to combat a perceived threat is quite insane.
We cannot fight fear with fear, and in fact, fear itself is not something that can be "fought", for to fight fear is to promote fear.
I do not propose that when a clear and present danger is identified that we do nothing. I believe in the adage, "have faith in God, but tie up your camel." But this does not imply that one should say to the camel, "You are a bad camel. I do not trust you. Therefore you need to be tied up." Rather, say, "I love you as myself and I am looking after our united welfare." But this works for animals, which, if we are to confine them for our purposes then we must do for them what they cannot do for themselves.
To treat our brothers as animals is a mistake.
Our brothers do not need to be given mandates based on our perception of their behavior, and it is twice a mistake to think that we should do to them what we think they are doing to us. The "stronger" and more capable nation is not always the "right" one, for freedom won as a result of war is not freedom but another form of enforced slavery on the loser.
If President Bush, his cabinet, and his advisors continue on this physical course of action of restraining or combating any country that appears to be a threat to Democracy (or more likely a threat to our national interests), the only result will be as it has always been - destruction of lives, destruction of property, and a huge price tag to pay for the recovery of both sides.
The better course of action is to continue at all costs the effort to identify the differences that create the conflict and to resolve those differences amicably. I have been told that in some cases it is better to agree to disagree than to defend a belief. The bloodiest nose is not evidence of a loser.
The one agreement between brothers should be, "Your freedom to act as you will ends with your attempt to restrict my freedom." If this is properly understood, there would be no need for war. The best way to understand this is to realize that whatsoever you have done to your brother you have also done unto yourself.
We are not just one nation, we are one humanity. To protect and serve humanity is to protect and serve all nations. To go to war against one for the sake of another is a grave mistake because it only serves to destroy part of that which is one.
3 comments:
The problem with any confrontation is that, in today's American liberal left-winged "everyone needs to live in peace" mindset, they want the 'confrontation', if it occurs, to be 'gentle, loving, and don't hurt even the microscopic spores on the fleas of the dogs of the owner who lives 10,000 miles away from the one person or group you bomb or shoot. And, in fact, don't bomb/shoot them, just try to 'catch' them and put them in a warm, cozy prison (though, not a prison, that's too "inhumane") for the rest of their lives; we'll pay for it with our tax dollars, it's the 'humane' thing to do.
Here is the confrontation which should occur when a clear and present danger exists:
Blow / bomb / wipe out the entire nation to smithereens.
SHOCK! HORROR! We can't kill innocent women & children in someone else's neighborhood (country)!
Oh, but we'll murder innocent children in our own backyard! We'll even use those same tax dollars to brutally murder unborn humans in their mother's womb by crushing their sculls with forceps. Oh, and we support the same method in "partial-birth" murders, too. That way, we get to see the excruciating pain on the baby's face.
After all, we don't want to put to death (e.g. the death penalty) for the man who rapes and murders the young daughters or sons of our fellow citizens. No, we want the "victim" to live their life in fear knowing the sinful violent criminal (oh, s'cuse moi, the "mentally and emotionally anguished from childhood we gotta have mercy on him, too" person. After all, he is a 'victim', too; poor guy) will get out of prison some day to again haunt the true victim, or that the true victim's children, and perhaps grand-children, will have to pay taxes to keep the violent criminal warm in his prison cell.
Oh, and pay the child-murdering doctor some $1500 to $3800 dollars for such an "act", though put a man in prison for 5 years for shooting and killing a cat. Again, all with the same tax dollars.
The belief of this blog author is that we are all "brothers" in the spiritual sense, therefore we must treat each other with respect and 'love' as such in the physical realm. The blog author is wrong, we are not all 'brothers', spiritually or otherwise, other than, yes, we all descended from Adam and Eve (and Noah and his wife; think about it)
History is clear of the intense bad consequences which occur when otherwise is done (that is, without taking out the nation, they will come back in revenge when they grow strong again)..
Such should have been don in Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, North Korea, Lybia, etc, if they truly present(ed) a genuine threat to our national security.
I will concur (in my own words) with the blog author that our American consumeristic "don't rattle my creature comforts or invade my personal comfy space" mindset needs to be nuked (literally or otherwise) versus our highly consumeristic dependence on oil for our cars, making plastics and other things of all kinds such that we feel it a "national security" / clear and present danger.
==============
Side Note: The blog author has lots of time to post blogs like this these days, unlike the author of this comment; except, for today, the comment author has the day off and desires to truly speak of TRUE human rights on this "Human Rights" day.
==============
What is the true clear and present danger facing our nation?
It's that simple. Really.
The 'terrorist' which is the most threatening wherein a true clear and present is the non-Christian liberal American citizen. Period.
Scratch that last paragraph. I truly and earnestly apologize to all non-Christian liberal American citizens (and I'm not joking, i'm 100% serious), I am 100% wrong in this accusation.
The 'terrorist' which is the most threatening wherein a true clear and present is the wet-noodled theology of ACME's (American Christian Modern Evangelical) that permits the non-Christian liberal American and non-American to openly rape our family structure and nation of its true Christian heritage.
Period.
Case in point:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324268,00.html
"With clever slogans that oversimplify complex public policy issues, the Right routinely scapegoats others in pursuit of their agenda." - http://www.thepubliceye.org
Case in point, the first paragraph of macspudster's comment. How's that for a lot of oversimplification? Don't hurt the microscopic spores on the fleas of the dogs of the owner who ... Come on, now! What's the purpose of that kind of oversimplification if it isn't to rally the simple-minded against the intellectual? The logic of this defies reason.
Not believing that we (Mankind) are one is a grave mistake, borne of the Right's need to be different. The other area that the Right wants to attack is that Science is wrong in its observation of the history of the Earth and the Universe. So let's continue in the direction that only one set of beliefs, vis a vis religion, is good for all of humanity. And yes, let's fight over it. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Oh yes, and let's all say that God's purpose is to have it that way. This is more oversimplification of a crucial point that needn't be bothered with.
Highlighting the obvious injustices of crime within our own nation does not justify the perceived need to bomb another nation for its injustices. If it did, then we should start bombing ourselves. That is truly insane thinking.
Attacking the "mild-mannered Son of God" with notions that we should smother our enemy with love and then offering evidence of how this backfires is more scapegoating. It also completely misses the point about what the "mild-mannered Son of God" is trying to get across. If you stop thinking in terms of war and crime and pestilence, then for you it doesn't happen. Literally! Quantum Physics backs this up. The behavior of the universe is altered by how we observe it. That's a fact! You can identify what you want to have in your life by what you get in your life, and what you get is what you've been looking for. Is your life filled with rapists, child molesters, murderers, and non-Christians? Guess what you're looking for? It's what your thoughts are focused on when you think you're thinking of securing a peaceful, loving environment for yourself.
A true terrorist is one who believes that sin is a real threat to be punished. And this does not mean that a crime should be molly-coddled. Sin is a mistake that can be corrected. Our penal institutions do nothing to correct, only to punish, thinking that punishment is proper corrective action. Same goes for bombing another nation. That's not corrective active, its punishment, and wholly undeserved. The whole concept of punishment is not of God, it is of the ego. Only the ego would want to destroy, because only the ego is insane enough to believe that God would destroy that which He created.
So stop thinking about babies being killed and thinking you have to do something about it. The only thing you can do is to be a loving child of God, and that has nothing to do with bombing your enemy or preventing another abortion.
Post a Comment