Comments on: Duke’s Jeremiah Wright – by Mark D. Tooley

By: AbdullahtheButcher

AbdullahtheButcher — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 07:20:33 +0000

And yet CHrist himself said of his disciples, those who had no sword should buy one. I'm no expert, but sometimes violence is necessary.

By: stemstan

stemstan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:06:21 +0000

The early Christians taught and lived non-violence amid the Roman Empire. They did this because they understood this to be the way of Jesus. Through the centuries the Church acquired power and has been compromised as it assumed weapons of violence to protect its political status.
Do Christians truly believe that the Son of God actually became flesh on planet earth; that he lived a life of non-violvence, rejected earthly power and was obedient to God by submitting himself to human violence? Do they believe that He rose again and that He opened the door to resurrection? Do they really think we Christians should live otherwise?
It seems to me that justifiying war and buying into redemptive violence denies the Christian message revealed in Jesus. My willingness to kill others relativises the Cross and denies the truth of the Incarnation..
The just shall live by faith.

By: Nathan Jones

Nathan Jones — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:54:10 +0000

As a United Methodist who leans conservative on many issues, this is an extremely disappointing article. Tooley shows, yet again, that he is far more style than substance… and the style itself is underwhelming. If you're going to attack someone much smarter and accomplished than yourself, at least be interesting. This article, unfortunately, was not.

By: Sassamon

Sassamon — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:57:51 +0000

According to Julian Gorin's article, thank you Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, there is a great deal more to know about this Iraq war than we had previously known, a great deal more.

By: cjkcjk

cjkcjk — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:07:20 +0000

The Indians were far and away more savager than the Americans.
The Indians were constantly fighting and enslaving each other long before white men arrived….oh yeah and theyy were cannibals also.

The BS historical revisionism taught and believed by most is distressing; we're the bad guys just because we won an inevitable victory in a clash of cultures.

By: Chase

Chase — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:39:28 +0000

Better yet, let's send him to ancient Rome with a Bible and see how Christian pacifism works.

By: Chase

Chase — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:36:03 +0000

When war solved Monarchism in Germany it created Nazism.

When war solved Nazism, it enabled Stalinism.

So much for democracy and freedom.

By: BS77

BS77 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:51:44 +0000

To stand by idly, while people…elderly, women, children, pregnant women are being slaughtered by insect Vermin like the terror thugs……is to be nearly as bad as the Vermin. Doing nothing is not pacifism.! DOing nothing is cowardice. Protecting the innocent, the helpless, the injured and the defenseless…this is real pacifism….even if it means using weapons to prevent further attacks. People were asked if a terrorist knew where a nuclear time bomb was hidden, should water boarding or more extreme methods be used to obtain the information necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?? Only an idiot would have questioned the use of waterboarding in this instance. A liberal is a twit who puts unlimited tolerance above self preservation….. GO SEALS!!!!!

By: BS77

BS77 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:41:49 +0000

SOme of what you say I agree with….but saying the Allies incinerated millions is a bit far fetched. Many of the excessive bombings, such as the Dresden bombing, were a result of faulty information, insecurity, uncertainty…and also anger and vengeance…no question about it. I cannot blame Stalin's career on the US or Britain…..The Russians played a great part in devestating the Nazi war machine….the Russian excesses were understandable given what the Germans did to Russia at the opening of the war. I mean, it was ugly, very ugly, but much of the horror must be put in perspective….and blamed on Hitler and his lunatic followers. I still believe the US has come a long way since the days of Indian slaughter. THe US is one of the principal human rights defenders in the world today…certainly not Saudi Arabia, China or Burma!!

By: Mo

Mo — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:25:52 +0000

I don't know what Bible people like this read, but it's not the one I have. The Bible doesn't teach complete pacifism. I don't know where they get such ideas!

By: GJTryon

GJTryon — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:41:26 +0000

According to the Vatican, Iraq was not, or rather IS not, a just war. It had not attacked the U.S. and the indiscriminate violence inflicted upon its citizenry, i.e., non-combatants, was out of all proportion to any real or imagined assault against Americans. Even granting the bogus Saddam tie-in with 9-11, how many children, after all, died in the twin towers? On the other hand, the Afghan adventure, at least initially, fulfilled the basic criteria for a just war. Whether at this point it can be regarded as a sensible war is another question.

By: jackguthrie

jackguthrie — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:55:47 +0000

Isn't pluralism wonderful? What exactly is the problem here? Is it that Hauerwas will use a bully-pulpit at Duke? I think he's wrong, but so what?

By: Sassamon

Sassamon — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:37:27 +0000

“Once hailed by Time magazine as America's most infulential theologian.”
Time magazine's lying bunk is not worth quoting. Nor is this madman.
Why the article? Why play the game? Oh, to call yourself a Christian and make statemens like this brings the other vermin out to your party. Bah!

By: Peter LaPeche

Peter LaPeche — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:07:24 +0000

What a sanctimonious douche. He has absolutely no concern over the true consequences of his beliefs, only in his own preening self righteousness.

By: cjkcjk

cjkcjk — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:58:46 +0000

The man is no Christian, but is rather an evil fool.

By: Dax

Dax — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:16:11 +0000

Um, “we” (the Allies) incincerated millions of innocent men, women and children by firebombings. After the war we did nothing while millions of ethnic Germans were kicked out of Eastern Europe…men, women and children, none of whom were Nazis…possibly millions died. The book “After the Reich” is a grim record of this overlooked period of history. I mean our ally in WW2 was Stalin, a greater murderer than Hitler by most historians' view. I agree in principle that war can certainly “solve” problems (Nazim was indeed obliterated), but let's not pretend that our “democratic” conduct in war has been a million times more ethical. Native Americans were “democratically” ethnically cleansed. Certainly we should do everything possible to promote human rights around the world but I don't think another march to barbarism a la Allied firebombings is the right solution.

By: andrewnitzberg

andrewnitzberg — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:24:02 +0000

The pacifists love saying 'war has never solved anything' but that is factually inaccurate. WWII 'solved' Nazism. War solved 'Monarchism' and made democracy and freedom possible. The list goes on.

By: USMCSniper

USMCSniper — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:32:04 +0000

Terrorists will not look at pacifism as our message of peace. Rather they will see it as a weakness to be exploited and used against us. They do not seek peace or harmony. They seek to rule everyone under their Islamic religious fanaticism.

They will not stop should we leave Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else. They will not live peacefully, or willthey ever seek to be our friends. They will slit the throats of those who dare stand against them. They will bring terror and murder to their own people on an unspeakable level.

The pacifists, if they desire, only need look back to the atrocities that occurred in South Vietnam and Cambodia in the millions after the United States democratic congress withdrew funding to see the folly of their cut-and-run pacifist ideology. Tyrants and evil men do not stop because of appeasement or surrender. There is only one thing that stops them, and that is overwhelming force and total defeat.

In the end, pacifism is not peaceful at all; it is neither moral or righteous. It is evil because it refuses to battle against evil it is only rationalized cowardice.

By: BS77

BS77 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:05:27 +0000

Pacifism is often the most hypocritical steaming pile of cowardice and false morality you will find. To do nothing but remain passive while helpless men, women and children are being slaughtered by Nazis, the Japanese in Manchuria, the countless victims of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur or Somalia….to do nothing but talk about “peace” is a fool's mistake. Sometimes direct military force is the ONLY thing that will end the horror. Eisenhower was one of the greatest peacemakers in history….he confronted the Nazi death machine and invaded Europe as a liberator.
Only an idiot would believe some pacifist could have ended the horrors of the Nazi war machine, the concentration camps, the deaths of millions of Poles, Russians, Jews, Slavs and other Europeans…..Even Ghandi did not bring peace to Pakistan and India…….China invaded Tibet, annexing it, enslaving and killing countless Tibetans…..the UN meekly called for human rights etc….but essentially did nothing. Doing nothing is what pacifism is all about. You do nothing and hope people like Hitler or Tojo, Achmidenijad or Osama Bin Laden, will just stop and be nice.

By: keithrage

keithrage — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:48:11 +0000

Send him to Afghanistan with a bible in his hand and let the taliban convice him how nice it is to be a pacifist when the blade comes around his throat.