Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	 Christian pacifism, it seems to me, is generally perceived as
a most extreme and eccentric position.  It makes little sense to most
Christians to refuse to protect and defend one's own life and the lives
of one's loved ones with the use of potentially deadly force.

	But were the things Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount, for
example, to be taken and acted upon literally or not?

Peace,
Richard

    
                      I *LOVE* .0......thank you Richard.
    
    
    Dave

    Also see:
    
Topic 151  Armies as instruments of God's vengeance
      160  On becoming a Conscientious Objector
      223  Specific Ways to Peace
      261  Turn the other cheek

    Peace,
    Richard

    These are the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Luke 6:27-36

	"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those
who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat
you.  If anyone hits you on one cheek, let him hit the other one too; if
someone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well.  Give to everyone
who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours, do not ask
for it back.  Do for others just what you want them to do for you.

	"If you love only the people who love you, why should you receive
a blessing?  Even sinners love those who love them!  And if you do good only
to those from whom you hope to get it back, why should you receive a blessing?
Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.  No!  Love your
enemies and do good to them; lend and expect nothing back.  You will then
have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High God.  For he is
good to the ungrateful and the wicked.  Be merciful just as your Father is
merciful." (TEV)

	Were these teachings to be taken and acted upon literally or not?

Peace,
Richard

re .4

Hi Richard,


;Were these teachings to be taken and acted upon literally or not?

Yes, but not word for word, the best way of understanding what he meant is
by looking how the spectators back then would have understood it. Also  
actions resulting from this teaching should be done with a Christ like mind. 
For example, someone who does not have a Christ like mind maybe immoral. 
As such "Do for others just what you want them to do for you." takes on a 
different meaning to those who have a Christ like mind.

1 Peter 2:21 tells us that Christ left a model for all Christians so that
they could follow his steps closely. By reading the Gospel accounts, we can
see how Jesus did good to others and how he views things and then try to
imitate his model. It's not easy.

Phil.

Note 369.5

Phil.

>Yes, but not word for word, the best way of understanding what he meant is
>by looking how the spectators back then would have understood it.

True enough.  Most of the people Jesus addressed probably possessed only
one coat.  Yet Jesus said, "....if someone takes your coat, let him have
your shirt as well."  We have so much more than one coat, figuratively and
literally speaking.  Even when it causes discomfort, says Jesus, give it
away.  Do not attempt to retrieve what has been taken away from you.  Seek
no vengeance, no retaliation.  Rather, respond with kindness.  Respond with
love, even to those who cause you discomfort.

>It's not easy.

Amen.

Peace,
Richard

    Love your enemies doesn't mean to help them achieve goals that are
    contrary to God's will. Occasionally God's people in OT times
    approached God's ideal. I think of the time Jehosophat sent choirs out
    to meet the enemy.... 
    	Usually by the time a military threat has arisen  the moral battles
    have already been lost. The situation in Kuwait would have never arisen
    had we taken a firm stand against oppression IMHO
    
    johN

Re:  .4

Those words should be acted upon as literally as they were meant!
(which, often but not always, is very literally).

Collis

    I am inspired by Martin Luther King's use of Jesus' message of love in
    leading the non violent protest to end the era of discrimination in the
    south.  MLT as did Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated to the world how
    powerful this message can really be.

    These historic people who have used the gospel in a revolutionary way
    to lead to social change provide me with the hope that Christianity can
    be a living religion leading to the Reign of the Divine on earth.  
    
    Pat

>Those words should be acted upon as literally as they were meant!
>(which, often but not always, is very literally).

	I would say they are to be taken both literally and *broadly*.
Of course, Jesus wasn't speaking about just being physically stricken
when he said, "If anyone hits you on one cheek, let him hit the other
one too," and Jesus wasn't speaking just about clothing when he said,
"..if someone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well."

	I would say that Jesus' teachings give us no outside parameters.
I believe Jesus was teaching a revolutionary idea; to live love as far
as each one is possibly able, and then, to reach a little further.  I
would say that Jesus' teachings were highly subversive for both his
time and ours.

	Can you imagine every Christian saying, "Even when justified, I will
never seek vengeance.  Even when justified, I will never retaliate.  I will
always do the most loving thing toward others, even those who would do me
harm.  My only limitation is my own understanding of what that means"?

Peace,
Richard

Note 369.9

>    These historic people who have used the gospel in a revolutionary way
>    to lead to social change provide me with the hope that Christianity can
>    be a living religion leading to the Reign of the Divine on earth.  

Me, too!

Peace,
Richard

There are 3 collectivities which bear the title Historic Peace Church or
HPC.  They are (in no particular order):

	Mennonites

	the Society of Friends or the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker)

	The Church of the Brethren (Dunkards)

These 3 have consistently refused taking up arms for war or to prepare for war.
Before the Conscientious Objector status was permissible, numerous members of
each of the HPC congregations suffered imprisonment, humiliation and torture
rather than raise a weapon against the life of another human being, proving
that one need not fall into the hands of the enemy to become a prisoner of war.

Peace,
Richard

	"I cannot walk with Jesus and go to war."

				-- Addis Wiley, former US Army Sgt.,
				court martialed for desertion, presently
				serving 9 month sentence at Ft. Sill, OK

				copied with permission.

    Okay.  I assume that Mr. Wiley has no objection to his prison sentence,
    though.   After all, he did break his contract with the American people
    when it seemed like he would have to put his military training to the
    use for which it was intended.  
    
    Mike

    Re: .14
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    I really don't know how Wiley feels about serving a prison term.
    
    I suspect what he feels is not so different from what Jesus, or Paul,
    or Peter, or Martin Luther King, Jr. felt when they were incarcerated.
    Some would say they same about the persons working with Operation
    Rescue.
    
    The law is far from perfect or just in all cases.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    In other words, you think he is being martyred?  Military law does make
    provision for people who have found religion, but the burden of proof
    is not on the military, but is on the person who has made the claim.
    Apparently Mr. Wiley wasn't able to substantiate his claim in a court
    of law.  While that is not proof positive that he was lying, it does
    mean that he had his day in court, and was unable to make his case.
    In my opinion, and based on what little has been presented here,
    justice has been served.
        
    Mike

    The Marine Corps released a large number of imprisoned Gulf War COs
    well before their sentences were up, possibly in response to the bad
    publicity and Congressional attention that it received over its
    persecution of COs last year.  I was glad to see that, because of the
    the letter writing campaigns spawned by these incidents, that one
    congressman has now proposed legislation to help prevent this from
    happening in the future.  I really don't know whether the bill has any
    a chance of passing, though. 

    -- Mike

    Prevent what from happening in the future?  Early release, or putting
    people in jail who break their contract with the American taxpayer?
    
    Mike

    Preventing the persecution of COs.
    
    -- Mike

    They aren't legally CO's if they weren't able to prove it in a court of
    law.  Ergo, they were not persecuted, in my opinion. 
    
    Anyway, would you mind helping me to understand your position a more
    clearly by answering a few questions?  I would certainly appreciate it.
    
    1. Do you think that all a soldier should have to do is proclaim one's
    self a CO, and the government should accept his/her word for it at face
    value?  
    
    2. Do you think that those people who have voluntarily joined the
    military should be expected to fulfill their contract?  Keeping in mind
    that the contract specifies that they can be let out of the military
    for reasons of conscience, but the burden of proof lies with
    the claimant. 
    
    3.  Or are you just anti-military, no matter what the circumstances?
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mike
          

    Historically, conscientious objectors have existed long before they
    were granted any kind of official recognition by the government.  At
    one time, there was no general recognition of COs; the government
    simply jailed them.  Thus the ebb and flow of government policy with
    respect to COs has nothing to do with the fact of their existence. 
    Over time, a government may move towards a policy of tolerance, and at
    other times (such as during the Gulf War) it can move towards
    persecution and mistreatment.  This has much to do with politics, and
    little to do with the fact of someone being a conscientious objector.

    No one here is claiming that CO claims should simply be taken at face
    value.  That is not the issue here.  Unfortunately, the historical ebb
    and flow by the military in its treatment of COs underwent a bit of an
    ebb in the Gulf War.  While the military may, in principle, accept the
    legitimacy of conscientious objection, its behavior during the war was
    another story: "lost" CO applications, ignored CO regulations by
    military commands, threats and physical attacks against COs, etc.

    Perhaps the worst sort of abuse was the reversal of what was apparently
    a prior tradition of not deploying soldiers with pending CO
    applications.  This provided a very easy way of punishing CO applicants
    whether their claims were legitimate or not.  Since a CO would, as a
    matter of conscience, refuse to participate in a war, his or her
    refusal to obey the deployment order would amount to a punishable
    offense, irrespective of the legitimacy of the CO claim itself.  CO
    applicants who refused to be deployed *were*, in fact, punished in this
    way.  Like witch trials in which the defendents had to drown in a body
    of water in order to prove their innocence, the mere act of applying
    for CO status could thus bring a legitimate applicant a less than
    honorable discharge.

    It was these sorts of abuses that resulted in Amnesty International's
    involvement in this issue, and which also led to a major letter writing
    campaign directed at the Marines to free some of the COs that they had
    mistreated or imprisoned.  The bill that is being proposed in Congress
    would have several provisions, but one important one involves the issue
    of deployment.  From the time an individual submits a notice of
    intention to file a CO application, the applicant would be relieved of
    all duties involving weapons and would be assigned duties that
    conflicted as little as possible with their stated belief.  This would
    remain in effect until a decision was made on the application.  

    There are several other provisions in this bill.  It is known as the
    Military Conscientious Objector Act of 1992.  Supporters can contact
    their Congressperson to co-sponsor the bill, organize a write-in
    campaign, or act in other ways to help passage.  It is likely to be
    introduced in the very near future.
 
    The War Resister's League is also involved with this project, and they
    can be contacted at
	War Resisters League, 339 Lafayette Street, NYC NY 10012, (212)
	228-0450

    They also have a list of COs who you can write to as a way of lending
    moral support.

    -- Mike

    Re: .20
    
    From the stories I've heard, the Gulf War CO's were not only prosecuted,
    they were persecuted; treated more maliciously than other military
    offenders.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .21/.22 

    It is possible that some commanders did not follow the proper rules in
    dealing with CO's.  To the extent that this is true, then those who
    suffered have a legitimate complaint, and deserve redress.

    I also think it a good idea to support legislation that clarifies how
    people who wish to claim CO status are to be treated.  That is, as long
    as it doesn't give away the farm, military discipline-wise.

    However, I still maintain that a significant portion of those folks who
    suddenly found religion when faced with the prospect of combat,
    attempted to use CO status as a means of avoiding same.  Like I said
    earlier, it would be interesting to look in on those who claimed CO
    status during Desert Storm in another year or two and see just how
    devout they have remained.  I am just cynical enough to think that a
    large portion of the Desert Storm CO's have slid back into their old
    ways, whatever those ways might have been.

    Mike 

Some brave Christians believe the need exists to find ways to

	- systematically identify persons trained in nonviolence
	  who are prepared to enter situations of conflict.

	- develop quick response teams for volatile situations and
	  a small group of full time persons ready to go at a moment's
	  notice.

	- have some of the necessary financial backing in place
	  before a crisis occurs, rather than reacting to the
	  crisis after it has already developed.

	- identify and clarify the spiritual, nonviolent, and
	  other skills that such teams will need.

Some brave Christians are proposing the formation of a Peace Reserve.
Doubtlessly, some will find this far-fetched and foolish.  But I kind
of like the idea.

Peace,
Richard

                   * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

Subject: Nun, two other peace activists report to jail
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 8:39:27 PDT
 
	MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. (UPI) -- Your typical hardened prisoners, they're
not.
	A 77-year-old Roman Catholic nun and two other peace activists
reported to the Macomb County Jail Monday afternoon to begin serving
their sentences for trespassing during a protest at Wurtsmith Air Force
Base near Oscoda two years ago.
	Sister Elizabeth LaForest, carrying a Bible and a deck of cards with
her to help pass the time, will spend 21 days behind bars. Luella
Bassett, a 72-year-old grandmother from Royal Oak, will serve 60 days.
Frances Bond, 48, of Grand Rapids was sentenced to 45 days.
	Each woman clutched a red rose as she walked toward the front door of
the jail. They were immediately circled by a crowd of about 35
supporters singing ``We Shall Overcome.''
	The women were among some 200 people who pushed over a temporary
fence outside the northern Michigan base to present the base commander
with peace symbols.
	For Sister Elizabeth, it's her second time in jail and she doesn't
expect it to be her last. The tiny, soft-spoken nun said peace and
reducing the military arms buildup in the United States ``are my
ministry.''

    No doubt these people are oblivious to the fact that they cause the
    taxpayer additional expense.
    
    Mike

Hi Mike .26,

I doubt that these folks are completely ignorant of the costs involved.

I suspect these folks feel that the cost in terms of human life supercedes
the expense of dealing with the annoyance of people of faith and conscience.

I can say this with some confidence because I've known several people who
have participated in similar actions.

Peace,
Richard

    Then I guess they won't mind it if taxpayers, whose money they are
    causing to be spent to support their actions, seek to have them
    punished to the fullest extent the law allows.  Just retribution, and
    all that.
    
    Mike

    I think you'll find that most practitioners of civil disobedience are
    prepared for the possibility of spending time in jail for what they do.
    For more information on the philosophy of civil disobedience, you might
    want to consider reading Thoreau's classic work on the subject.

    And if you strongly object to taxpayers footing the bill for civil
    disobedience, then it is worth pointing out that housing them in jail
    for "the fullest extent the law allows" will cost taxpayers even more
    money.  It is also worth pointing out that the taxpayer cost of funding
    what those individuals were protesting in all probability far exceeds
    the cost of sending them to jail.

    -- Mike

    No doubt you are correct on both counts.  Nevertheless, these people
    are sufficiently irritating that something must be done with them.
    
    Mike

    I think the point of civil disobedience often is precisely to be an
    irritant, at least to the established authorities.  The theory is that
    being an irritant is sometimes what it takes to fight injustice, a
    theory that was put into practice by Martin Luther King in the Civil
    Rights movement.
    
    -- Mike

    I guess so.  However, I do not put these particular ladies in the same
    class as Martin Luther King.  What he wanted was justice.  What these
    ladies want is lunacy.
    
    Mike

    I realize that whether one agrees with the goals they seek influences
    one's attitude towards them.  Obviously I have a different perspective,
    and I *would* put those women in the same class as Martin Luther King. 
    It is worth nothing that the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience,
    such as what King and these women have been doing, is an expression of
    pacifist principles; thus the women, by their actions, were in fact
    acting in agreement with what they sought to achieve.  The end and the
    means were, for them, one and the same.

    -- Mike

Often the witnesses of people such as Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostle Peter,
the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther King, Jr., M. K. Gandhi, and many others,
including Sister Elizabeth LaForest, are popularly perceived in their time
as the actions of lunatic visionaries and troublemaking malcontents.

It's probably because I'm in agreement with her stance that I consider
the Sister to be a woman of enormous courage and spiritual conviction
to do what she does, especially at her age.

Peace,
Richard

	I am guilty of War
	  when I distort others opinions
	    which differ from my own.

	I am guilty of War
	  if I imagine myself and my kin
	    to be a privileged people.
	
	I am guilty of War
	  if I believe my heritage entitles me
	    to monopolize resources.

	I am guilty of War
	  when I make success in life solely dependent
	    upon power, fame and riches.

	I am guilty of War
	  when I think the minds of people should be
	    regulated by force rather than by reason.

	I am guilty of War
	  when I believe the God I conceive must be
	    the One others must accept.

	I am guilty of War
	  when I think the land of one's birth
	    must be the place of one's livelihood.

The following several notes are excerpts from the book "Violence and
Nonviolence in South Africa," by Walter Wink.  Wink is currently
professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary.

			    JESUS' THIRD WAY
			    ================

Many of those who have committed their lives to ending aparteid simply
dismiss Jesus' teachings about nonviolence out of hand as impractical
idealism.  And with good reason.  "Turn the other cheek" suggests the
passive, Christian doormat quality that has made so many Christians
cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice.  "Resist not evil"
seems to break the back of all opposition to evil and to counsel
submission.  "Going the second mile" has become a platitude meaning
nothing more than "extend yourself," and rather than fostering structural
change, encourages collaboration with the oppressor.

Jesus obviously never behaved in any of these ways.  Whatever the source
of the misunderstanding, it is clearly neither in Jesus nor his teaching,
which, when given a fair hearing in its original social context, is
arguably the most revolutionary political statements ever uttered:

  You have heard that it was said, "An eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth."
  But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil.  But if anyone strikes you
  on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; if anyone would sue you and
  take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to
  go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5.38-41 RSV)

When the court translators working in the hire of King James chose to
translate antisenai as "Resist not evil," they were doing more than rendering
Greek in to English.  They were translating nonviolent resistance into
docility.  Jesus did *not* tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil.
That would have been absurd.  His entire ministry is utterly at odds with
such a preposterous idea.  The Greek word is made up of two parts: anti -
a word still used in English for "against," and histemi, a verb which in its
noun form (stasis) means violent rebellion, armed revolt, sharp dissension.
Thus Barabbas is described as a rebel "who had committed murder in the
insurrection" (Mark 15.7:Luke 23.19,25), and the townspeople in Ephesus
"are in danger of being charged with rioting" (Acts 19.40).  The term
generally refers to a potentially lethal disturbance or armed revolution.

A proper translation of Jesus' teaching would then be, "Do not strike back
at evil (or, one who has done you evil) in kind.  Do not give blow for blow.
Do not retaliate against violence with violence."  Jesus was no less committed
to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance fighters.  The only
difference was over the means to be used: *how* one should fight evil.

There are three general responses to evil: 1) passivity, 2) violent opposition,
and 3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus.

Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses:
flight or fight.  "Fight" had been the cry of the Galileans who had abortively
rebelled against Rome only two decades before Jesus spoke.  Jesus and many of
his hearers would have seen some of the two thousand of their countrymen
crucified by the Romans along the roadsides.  They would have known some
of the inhabitants of Sepphoris (a mere three mile north of Nazareth) who
had been sold into slavery for aiding the insurrectionists' assault on the
arsenal there.  Some would also live to experience the horrors of the war
against Rome in 66-70 CE, one of the ghastliest in human history.  If the
option "fight" had no appeal to them, their only alternative was "flight":
passivity, submission, or, at best, a passive/aggressive recalcitrance in
obeying commands.  For them no third way existed.  Submission or revolt
spelled out the entire vocabulary of their alternatives to oppression.

Now we are in a better position to see why King James' faithful servants
translated antistenai as "resist not."  The king would not want people
concluding that they had any recourse against his or any other sovereign's
unjust policies.  Therefore the populace must be made to believe that there
are two alternatives and only two: flight or fight.  Either we resist not or
we resist.  And Jesus commands us, according to these king's men, to resist
not.  Most modern translations have meekly followed in that path.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt.  One does
not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs.
Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial
might and minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from
the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile?  Is this not to rebound to the opposite
extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy?  The question here, as in the
two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative,
how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the
time being be changed - The rules are Caesar's, but not how one responds
to the rules - that is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he
reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty to eighty-five pounds in
full gear), and you say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile."  Why
would you do that?  What are you up to?  Normally he has to coerce your
kinsmen to carry his pack, and now you do it cheerfully, and *will not
stop!*  Is this a provocation?  Are you insulting his strength?  Being
kind?  Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther
than you should?  Are you planning to file a complaint?  Create trouble?

From a situation of servile impreement, you have once more seized the
initiative.  You have taken back the power of choice.  The soldier is
thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your
response.  He has never dealt with such a problem before.  Now you have
forced him into making a decision for which nothing in his previous experience
has prepared him.  If he has enjoyed feeling superior to the vanquished,
he will not enjoy it today.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomforting the soldier or
embarrassing the creditor.  But can people who are engaged in oppressive
acts repent unless they are made to feel uncomfortable with their actions?
There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge
and humiliation.  There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger
of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of
Jesus with being nice.  Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from
docility and the oppressor from sin.

Even if nonviolent action does not immediately change the heart of the
oppressor, it does affect those committed to it.  As Martin Luther King, Jr.,
attested, it gives them new self-respect, and calls up resources of
strength and courage they did not know they had.  Tothose who have power,
Jesus advice to the powerless may seem paltry.  But to those whose lifelong
pattern has been to cringe, bow, and scrape before their masters, and who
have internalized their role as inferiors, this small step is momentous.

These three examples amplify what Jesus means in his thesis statement:
"Do not violently resist evil (or, one who is evil)."  Instead of two
options engrained in us by millions of years of unreflective, brute
response to biological threats from the environment: fight or flight,
Jesus offers a third way.  This new way marks a historic mutation in
human development: the revolt against the principle of natural selection.
With Jesus a way emerges by which evil can be opposed without being
mirrored:
    

    
	- Seize the moral initiative

	- Find a creative alternative to violence

	- Assert your own humanity and dignity

	- Meet force with ridicule or humor

	- Break to cycle of humiliation

	- Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position

	- Expose the injustice of the system

	- Take control of the power dynamic

	- Shame the oppressor into repentance

	- Stand your ground

	- Make the Powers make decisions for which they are not prepared

	- Recognize your own power

	- Be willing to suffer rather than retaliate

	- Force the oppressor to see you in a new light

	- Deprive the oppressor of a situation where a show of force
	  is effective

	- Be willing to undergo the penalty of breaking unjust laws

	- Die to fear of the old order and its rules

The following is an excerpt from a sermon by Barry Bishop of Hamilton
Mennonite Church (reprinted here with permission):

	I worked as a manager at Hewlitt-Packard, a high-tech computer
company that makes graphics terminals in Waterloo.  The terminals are,
in and of themselves, neither good or bad.  Two years ago, however, I
became aware that a significant number of our terminals were being used
by the U.S. military.  This concerned me, but I just buried the issue
and went on with my work.

	Then, this past August I was faced with reality.  We were actively
going to start bidding on a requirement for a large number of terminals,
and I would need to play a crucial role in the sales process.  It wasn't
until I got the full package of information that I realized what was
*really* going on.  Our terminal were going to be used in a manufacturing
operation to display information to the workers on how to build their
products.  The product that was being built?  Nuclear weapons for the
U.S. military.

	At that instant, I knew I could not ignore this issue.  On the
one hand, my own personal beliefs were that war was wrong.  I also had
a clearer picture of an internal conflict that had been bothering me over
a period of months -- I was part of a refugee resettlement committee in
Waterloo that was helping Central American refugees, and yet at the same
time I was supplying equipment that was being used to build the bombers
that caused them to flee in the first place.  I truly believe God's
Spirit opened my eyes at that point and called me to make a change.  The
result of that call is that I have resigned from Hewlitt-Packard.

    
    	RE: .41
    
    	That story reminded of a family, I forgot where, I think it was
    	a family in New Hampshire, who refused to pay taxes because part
    	of their taxes were being used to pay for the military budget.
    
	The last I remember is that because they refused to pay taxes,
    	they lost their home, which was put up for auction.  All of their
    	neighbors showed up at the auction and they tried to buy the
    	house back by bidding way under the minimum bid, but the company
    	that was conducting the auction refused to sell it for such a
    	low price.  I haven't heard anything else since that happened.
    
    	Does anyone else remember that story ?.  I wonder how many people
    	would go that far to fight for peace. 
    
    			Juan
    

.42

I suspect you're speaking of Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner of Colrain,
Massachusetts.  There was an interesting interview with Kehler, a war
tax resister, in the March-April issue of "The Other Side" magazine.

Richard

	Lately I've been reading about U.N. "peacekeeping" operations and
U.S. "humanitarian" military actions.  In contrast to some Anabaptist
writers, I'm not convinced there were only two options in Somalia: 1) Send
in the Marines or 2) watch Somalis fight and stave.

	I've watched the U.S. military in South Florida after Hurricane
Andrew and realized how much more work I could do with a hammer in my
hand than they could do with guns in their hands.  I suspect we'll discover
the same is true in Somalia.  Reconciliation and development don't come out
of the barrel of a gun.

	In one analysis, the peacekeeping and humanitarian work needs to
start here in North America.  We need to follow Jesus so closely that we
stop paying for inhumane actions and trading so heavily in arms that we are,
in reality, "war-keepers."


					- Cliff Kindy
					  North Manchester, Indiana

    	As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to
    proclaim the Gospel of Peace.
    
    Ephesians 6.15 NRSV
    

Then there's the "Jesus Christ Superstar" version:

	Put away your sword!
	Don't you know that it's all over?
	It was nice but now it's gone
	Why are you obsessed with fighting?
	Stick to fishing from now on

				-- Bob

Note 369.50

>    Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords.
>    And he said unto them, "It is enough."

Another way Jesus' words can be tranlated is, "Enough of this!"  (As if
to say, "You still don't get it, do you?  It's so frustrating when you
don't really hear me.")
    
>    Luke 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow,
>    they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
    
>    why is there no immediate answer?

It was not uncommon for Jesus to answer questions with silence.  Jesus
was a lot like God.
    
>    perhaps defensive action is allowed. 

I never said it wasn't.

Peace,
Richard
    

    I've seen this topic and have never been compelled to reply.  However,
    I noticed it again last night before I left and during the night it
    came back to me and I started wondering.  What does a Christian
    Pacifist do when faced with a situation like many Jews were faced 
    with where the Nazis had a prisoner shoot someone and if they 
    didn't then the Nazis would kill everyone else.  What if that 
    prisoner was you?  What would you do?
    
    Jill

    Ask me again when it's not hypothetical.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Oh come on!  That's a cop-out!  Of course it's hypothetical and
    nobody will truly know how they will respond in a given situation
    until they've faced it.  But what do you think your response 
    should be given your beliefs.  What do you think Jesus' response
    would have been?  
    
    Jill

    I think I would volunteer to be the one to die.  I think that this
    response is derived from Jesus' example.  There's no greater love.
    
    Richard
    

    I would actively resist.
    
    Marc H.

Note 369.57

>    Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
>    over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

This is a line from the parable of the gold coins.  Implying that this argues
in favor of violent retaliation is like saying that Jesus favored the brutal
whipping of slaves by citing Luke 12.41-48.

Richard

    
    RE: .55
    
    I don't think that was an option the Jews got...not that some didn't
    try.  I think they even picked out the person they wanted you to 
    kill and if you did not kill that one person nothing else matter -
    all of them died.  We're talking about ruthless men...men whose
    hearts were cold.  They did these things out of cruelty and hate.
    
    What if Jesus was told to kill John, his beloved disciple, or else
    they will kill a multitude of others who were standing around listening
    to him.  What would He do?  How would Jesus handle this ethical and
    moral dilemma?
    
    RE:  .56
    
    You could actively resist and then everyone would be dead and you'd
    be looking at all the dead bodies.  Is that somehow better than you
    pulling the trigger on one?  I'm not advocating that this should be
    a no-brainer or anything.  Anyone in this position would be hard-
    pressed to carry that out.  I'm just curious how far Pacifism goes.  
    
    Jill

    
    Matthew 5:9 was one of my favorite verses as a child...still is.
    
    However there is also Mark 13:7,8 where Jesus says...
    
    When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed.  Such
    things must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise
    against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be earthquakes
    in various places, and famines.  These are the beginning of birth
    pains.

    .59  Jill,
    
    	It looks like a no-win situation to me.  Who is to say that the
    rest wouldn't be slaughtered on sheer whim and within minutes of
    whatever action I took?
    
    	A miracle would be in order, don't you think?
    
    Richard

Note 369.61

>    When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed.  Such
>    things must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise
>    against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  There will be earthquakes
>    in various places, and famines.  These are the beginning of birth
>    pains.

Seems like this old world has been experiencing Braxton-Hicks for an awfully
long time!

Richard

    .65 Jill,
    
    Uh, .64 was meant as just a topic related posting.  I wasn't specifically
    referring to the Nazi dilemma which you posed.
    
    Richard
    

    So, Jill (.52).  What do you think you would do, hypothetically
    speaking?
    
    Richard
    

	Jill,

	In your hypothetical question, one can safely say that Jesus would
	have not pulled the trigger. Under no circumstances did he allow
	himself to squeezed into the mold of this world (or this system
	of things). John 17:16 indicates that Jesus' followers would
	follow his example. As to what he or his followers would do, well
	prayer to his Father seeking guidance and help would be most 
	appropriate. Matthew 6:13 NWT comes to mind in regard to your
	hypothetical question "Do not bring us to temptation, but deliver
	us from the wicked one."

	Phil.	

    RE: .59
    
    I quess that I wasn't clear....actively resist means I would have 
    joined the underground forces.
    
    Marc H.

    .69  I suppose I would have done likewise, Marc, since in some ways
    I feel like I'm in the underground forces even now.  But in Jill's
    scenario, joining the resistance or not doesn't seem to be an option.
    
    Richard
    

Muslim
Jewish
Christian

Prayer for Peace
----------------
    
O God, you are the source
of life and peace.
Praised be your name forever.
We know it is you who turn
our minds to thoughts of peace.
Hear our prayer in this time of war.

Your power changes hearts.
Muslims, Christians, and Jews remember,
   and profoundly affirm,
that they are followers of the one God,
children of Abraham, brothers and sisters;
enemies begin to speak to one another,
those who were estranged
join hands in friendship;
nations seek the way of peace together.

Strengthen our resolve to give witness
    to these truths by the way we live.
Give to us:
*Understanding* that puts an end to strife;
*Mercy* that quenches hatred, and
*Forgiveness* that overcomes vengeance.

Empower all people to live in your law of love.

Amen

Pax Christi USA/Fellowship of Reconciliation

	A common caricature of the Peace Movement is that of a ragtag fellowship
of fanatics, many of whom seem to be stuck in a time warp.  Kooks, yes, but
innocuous kooks for the most part.  Quaint as Quakers, war protesters have
become condescendingly construed as a testimonial to American tolerance and
the right to exercise free speech.

	This portrait is sorely lacking.
    
Peace,
Richard

	Leader:  We are called to comfort the afflicted.

	People:  LET US ALSO AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE.

	Leader:  Let us consecrate our lives to the Way,

	People:  THE WAY OF PEACE.

	Leader:  Let us be peacemakers.  Let us be called the children
		 of the Most Holy.

	People:  LET US DECLARE PEACE.  LET US INCITE PEACE.  LET US
		 INFLICT PEACE.  LET US WAGE PEACE.

	Leader:  Peace is more than the mere absence of war.

	All:	 PEACE IS ACTING UPON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESENCE OF
		 THE SACRED.

 Afflict the comfortable?

        -< Liturgy to be used 12/31 during interfaith peace meditation >-

	Leader:  We are called to comfort the afflicted.

	People:  LET US ALSO AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE, THE COMPLICIT
		 AND COMPLACENT.

	Leader:  Let us consecrate our lives to the Way,

	People:  THE WAY OF PEACE.

	Leader:  Let us be peacemakers.  Let us be called the children
		 of the Most Holy.

	People:  LET US DECLARE PEACE.  LET US INCITE PEACE.  LET US
		 INFLICT PEACE.  LET US WAGE PEACE.

	Leader:  Peace is more than the mere absence of war.

	All:	 PEACE IS ACTING UPON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESENCE OF
		 THE SACRED.

 What does it mean to afflict the comfortable, the complacent, etc?

    .86  Well, to me, it's not very different from what Jesus did.
    It is to take the prophetic role and to rouse those who have
    cushioned themselves against the suffering and oppressed of the
    world.  It is to awaken them from the comfort of their warm beds
    to see that their comfort may actually be contributing to the
    suffering.  It is to shake the complicit out of denial.
    
    Peace, like Christian faith, is both a source of comfort and a
    source of affliction.  Affliction stirs one to action, even when
    one's inclination is to do nothing.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 OK...I had this vision of people storming the homes of "comfortable" people
and tossing them out.






Jim

    .88
    
    8-}
    
    Richard
    

In the 1970s, Billy Graham denounced nuclear weapons on moral grounds.
This stand, imho, is far more significant than his view on the nature
of Hell.

Shalom,
Richard

    .91
    
    I would disagree with you because one deals with the mortal and the
    other deals with immortal.
    
    Nancy

    
    God told us to be keepers of the Earth.  I truly believe that 
    nuclear weapons are against God's wishes, and see Mr. Graham's
    statement - that he made as a mortal - to be directly in line 
    with God's will.                
    
    Last night I watched a program that told of the nuclear testing
    out in the western US that was covered up, and the horror the
    people are still being plagued with.  It's so terrible.  A real
    Hell.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .93
    
    I take the opposite view. Nuclear weapons save lives in WW2 by
    bringing a swift end to the war. Nuclear weapons ended the evil Russian
    empire .....we basicly won by having superior weapons. If we hadn't
    developed the nuclear weapons better and faster than the russian.....we
    would be living, today, under a russian leader.
    
    Just my opinion.....
    
    Marc H.

 Its Dr. Graham.

    Dr. Graham, Rev. Graham, Mr. Graham....
    

    .92  Moral, benevolent actions is what it's about - not the temporal
    versus the eternal.  I genuinely believe God calls us to more, Nancy.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .94  Even if I agreed with everything you said (which I don't),
    Jesus would not allow me to "push the button."
    
    Don't get the wrong idea.  I do appreciate your input here, Marc.
    And I realize that not many share my perspective on this matter.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

Note 369.93

>    Last night I watched a program that told of the nuclear testing
>    out in the western US that was covered up, and the horror the
>    people are still being plagued with.  It's so terrible.  A real
>    Hell.
    
Cindy,

	ABC's "Turning Point: The Cover-up at Ground Zero."  Our benevolent
and truthful government has knowingly destroyed lives, including many,
many children for decades.  Ultimately, for its irresponsibility, the
government will claim sovereign immunity.  This is what we get when
in the name of national security we give away power, funds and a level
of secrecy that precludes accountability.

	Thank God for Hazel O'Leary.  Praise God for her integrity and
courage.

Shalom,
Richard

    While God may call us to more in our temperal lives, I believe that
    which effects the eternal soul is more powerful then that which
    effects the temperal.  One is ever-changing and the other is final.
    That is of course unless your of the Cindy-persuasion. :-)
    
    Nancy

    
    Nancy,
    
    I believe the eternal soul manifests as the physical form, and there is
    a direct connection between them.  
    
    Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy the physical form.  It affects
    the eternal soul as well, since ultimately they are connected.
    
    Cindy

    .102
    
    Interesting... can you explain a little further?

Note 369.101

>    While God may call us to more in our temperal lives, I believe that
>    which effects the eternal soul is more powerful then that which
>    effects the temperal.

There is a connection between what we do here and Realm of the Sovereign.
You've either not made that connection, or deny that such a connection
exists.  I might suggest reading Matthew 25.31 to the end of the chapter
and apply it to the situation.  It would be a small, but important start.

>    One is ever-changing and the other is final.
>    That is of course unless your of the Cindy-persuasion. :-)
 
Cindy and I have overlapping ideas in many areas, including shalom.  Our
"persuasions" are hardly identical, but I won't mind if you lump her and me
together.  On the other hand, Cindy might not be comfortable with that.

Richard

    .94
    
>   Nuclear weapons save lives in WW2 by bringing a swift end to the war.

    They may have brought a swift end to the war, but they certainly didn't
    save lives. People are still dying today from the results of the bomb
    on Hiroshima and that's just one bomb. What about the "accidents"?
    Chernobyl for example. And the effect on ordinary people living near
    and working on the Nuclear sites? 
    
>   Nuclear weapons ended the evil Russian empire .....we basicly won by having 
>   superior weapons. If we hadn't developed the nuclear weapons better and  
>   faster than the russian.....we would be living, today, under a russian 
>   leader. 
    
    That's a matter of opinion. All over the World one Communist country
    after another overthrew communism. It didn't have anything to do with
    the threat of nuclear weapons that I can see. If it was the threat of
    nuclear war, then why hasn't China thrown in the towel? 
    
    Didn't the majority vote for a hard line communist at a recent Russian 
    election? 
                                      

    RE: .99
    
    No problem at all, Richard.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .105
    
    All I can do, is tell you my opinion and some facts. 
    I used to have a technican work for me...he was a veteran of WW2.
    One day, he told me a story about the last days of the war. He was
    part of a large group of GI's that were training to invade Japan.
    During the drills, they were *told* that 10% of them would make it
    alive!
    
    The dropping of the bomb on Japan stopped the war and most likely 
    saved his life. Most Japanese leaders will tell you that the bomb
    saved far more lives...US and Japanese than it killed.
    
    Whether you choose to believe this or not is your call, but, I am
    convinced from the books I have read (college courses) and
    documentaries I have seen , that the bomb was the best and only way
    to stop the war. I , for one, am glad that we developed it.
    
    Marc H.

    Re.107
    
    Marc,
    
    WWII was a different time.  I won't debate whether or not it was good
    to develop and drop the A-Bomb during that time, because that time is
    now past.  What matters now is what we learn from it.
    
    I will say now that since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt what will 
    happen, I think it behooves all of us to consider the possibilities of 
    a world obliterated by nuclear weapons, and by doing that, coming to 
    the conclusion that the best thing to do in the times we are in now, 
    is to destroy them.    
    
    I wrote a persuasive paper in a college course a few years ago entitled 
    "The Necessity Of Global Cooperation", and came to the conclusion that 
    this was the only sane alternative.  The paper is in this conference 
    somewhere...check basenotes if you're interested.  
    
    Much like God flooding the Earth (if you happen to believe this story)
    in Noah's time because at that time it may have been the right thing 
    to do, but then consciously choosing from that time on never to do it 
    again.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.103
    
    Nancy,
    
    I agree with Richard's first paragraph reply in .104 about the
    connection between here and the eternal.  To me, there is a 
    direct connection.  To you though, perhaps there is not.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .108
    
    Cindy,
     I would welcome a total elimination of nuclear weapons...world wide.
    But, how can you do it with human nature the way it is?
    North Korea has been rumored to have the nuclear bomb today. How could
    you make them get rid of it...given the brutal military dictatorship
    that is their?
    
    I don't like it one bit, but, only through a strong defense with the 
    US can you /me/ and others here continue to have the freedoms we enjoy.
    
    Marc H.

    
    Re.110
    
    Marc,
    
    Peace begins at home.  First we begin to disarm our own bombs to set
    the example.  
    
    We don't need enough nuclear weapons on the face of the earth to blow
    us all up 1000 times each (or whatever the ridiculous number is now.)
    
    And at the same time, I'm not suggesting that we disband our military,
    and disassemble *all* weapons and bombs either.  
    
    First of all, for peace in the world, we pray (whatever prayer to
    whatever diety you wish, as long as it's sincere).  There are miracles
    taking place on this Earth, whether you call them miracles or not.  Who
    would have thought that the Berlin wall would come down in our
    lifetime?  Or the head of the PLO and Israel actually shaking hands and
    signing a peace tready?
    
    Then we use political and economic channels to work at making this a
    nuclear-free world.  For those who cannot be reached in these ways, it
    may take military force.  It's been done before.  But hopefully it will 
    not have to come to this in most situations.
    
    The first step, though, is to believe that it can be done, and pray for
    that, and then work for it systematically.  Otherwise it will *never* 
    happen.
    
    Cindy
                                                     

    RE: .111
    
    Cindy,
     I agree totally with you. No problem at all. My take , though, is
    that a strong defense is always needed,to ward off the future and
    present Hitlers.
    
    One of the best ways to break down the walls around countries is to
    develop economic ties to them. Thats why I think that we must continue
    to trade with China.
    
    Marc H.

    re; .107
    
    I appreciate that the bomb on Hiroshima stopped the war. I accept that
    this saved the lives of soldiers fighting in the war. My point is that
    it has cost far more lives than it ever saved. People are still dying.
    From ONE bomb. No wonder the powers that be are so reluctant to repeat
    the experience.

    
         "The bottom line for people acting nonviolently is that
         they would rather suffer violence personally than have
         it inflicted on someone else."

         			Robert Hillegass

    The following is an account by Robert Hillegass of Greenfield, NH on
    the Alternative to Violence Project, which tries to help prisoners work
    out violent tendencies.

    Copied without permission from the Monadnock Ledger.

    ------------------

    Alternative to Violence Project prison workshops owe much to the Quaker
    ethic of nonviolence and the transforming power of love. For this work
    Friends have been uniquely prepared both by their faith tradition and
    their history, which has cast them in the role of both inmates and
    reformers.

    Early Friends, during the tumultuous years of the English Revolution
    (1641-1660), led by their focal belief in the "Inner Light" (or Inner
    Christ) as the ultimate source of authority, were imprisoned by the
    thousands. They were charged with "blasphemy," with refusing to join
    Cromwell's army, with refusing to pay the oppressive church tithes that
    bore unjustly upon the poor, and with refusing "hat honor" to their
    social betters in a class-ridden society.

    After the Restoration (1660) of Charles II, when Conventicle Acts
    forbade Quakers (and other dissenters) from gathering for worship,
    Friends continued to meet, resulting in the arrest of more thousands --
    until, in some cases, only the children were left to gather.

    About 500 died of disease and exposure from the brutal and unsanitary
    conditions of the prisons -- including many of the leaders of the
    movement. Near the end of his live, George Fox, the founder of the
    Quaker movement, his health broken, wrote to a friend: "Prisons have
    been made my home the great part of my time." It was the price he, and
    many others, paid for witnessing to the truth of religious freedom and
    social justice.

    During the Quaker persecutions, John Bellers, a London Friend, was
    proclaiming that the whole end of justice should be reform of the
    criminal -- an unheard-of idea at the time.

    More than a century later, in 1813, another English Friend, Elizabeth
    Frye, moved by the abysmal conditions she observed during visits to
    London's infamous Newgate prison, launched a prison reform campaign
    that made itself felt throughout Europe. As a consequence, men
    prisoners were separated from women and hardened criminals from firs
    offenders. Of her prison work, she said, "It must be in the spirit,
    not of judgment, but of mercy."

    Frye's work was paralleled in America during the late 18th century when
    Quakers initiated the "penitentiary system" in which an offender was
    offered the chance to become "penitent," given solitude and a Bible --
    and advance over correctional practices of the day.

    In 20th -century America, women's rights activist Alice Paul led a
    nonviolent campaign for women's suffrage that led indirectly to prison
    reform, IN the face of endless foot-dragging by Congress and the Wilson
    administration on the question of a constitutional amendment
    guaranteeing women the right to vote, Paul organized a silent vigil at
    the White House -- probably the first demonstration ever held there.

    In all, 218 vigilers were imprisoned, including Paul, who was put in
    solitary. The women then began a hunger strike to assert the rights of
    women political prisoners. At that point, Wilson finally relented and
    Congress passed the women's suffrage amendment early in 1918.

    No testimony has been more central to Friends' faith than the Peace
    Testimony, If every person has "that of God" within, then violence
    toward others is unthinkable.

    During the Colonial period, many Quakers refused to serve in the
    militia or to pay war taxes and were sometimes imprisoned for it.
    During World War I, along with other political and religious
    conscientious objectors, Quakers were imprisoned under harsh
    conditions.

    During World War II, when the Selective Service Act granted
    conscientious objector status to members of the historic peace
    churches, some Friends nevertheless refused alternative service and
    went to jail -- on the principle that alternative service confirmed the
    right of the government to impose military conscription. More recently,
    curing the nuclear arms race, some Friends were imprisoned for
    nonviolent witness at nuclear weapons facilities, enabling them to
    experience at first hand the overcrowded, dehumanizing atmosphere in
    today's prisons.

    In general, Friends, following the leadings of the Light Within, have
    resisted the law of men when they perceive (after prayerful reflection
    and seeking clearness with their meeting community) that the law
    conflicts with the law of God.

    The Quaker campaigns against war, political and religious repression,
    economic injustice, and sexism, can all be seen as resistance to forms
    of violence that enchain the human spirit -- that extinguish the Light
    in others. Thus as a group, Friends fail to draw a distinct line
    between the divine and the secular, between the spiritual and the
    political. And while Friends have experienced periods of quietism in
    their history, their continuing concern has been to "move our religion
    from our throats to our muscles."
    

Note 369.114

>   Thus as a group, Friends fail to draw a distinct line
>   between the divine and the secular, between the spiritual and the
>   political.

Though not officially a Quaker, I'm guilty of this, as well.

Peace,
Richard

    "Peace is more than the absence of tension.  It is the
     presence of justice."
    
    					- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
    

    
    I heard on the news a few nights ago that Pres. Clinton has signed
    a nuclear test ban order, however I didn't catch the duration of the
    ban.  
    
    Can anyone confirm this, and if so, do you know the duration?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    	I've heard nothing about this.  It's most uncharacteristic of
    this president, who has not been a very strong opponent of nukes
    (imo).
    
    	Usually, these bans are in reality just setting certain limits.
    And so, the word "ban" can be kind of deceiving.
    
    	Hope I'm wrong on this one.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

						April 15, 1994

	Internal Revenue Service
	Ogden, UT 84201


	Dear Taxpaying Friend,

		 I am paying under protest the portion of my federal
	income taxes which support the preparation and waging of all
	wars, past or future, secret or legislated, popular or unpopular.

		I am also paying under protest the portion of my taxes
	which pay for military style solutions for domestic situations
	such as that which occured last year at Mt. Carmel near Waco,
	Texas.

		Such acts are clearly contrary to the central principles
	of my faith (Christian).  My conscience is being held hostage by
	my tax obligation to subsidize suffering and death.

						Respectfully,

						<signature>




	Copies sent to:
	  President William Clinton
	  U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
	  U.S. Senator Hank Brown
	  U.S. Representative Joel Hefley

I saw a show on Thursday (I think) with my wife which was
about the situation in Sarejevo and surrounding area.
Peter Jennings was the host (I think).

The question raised by the program was, would this have
happened if the US and/or other countries stepped in
early?  Are we guilty of standing by while people kill
people viciously and without thought?  While one culture
destroys (as best they can) another culture?  While
rape camps are established?  While indiscriminate bombing
continues?  While concentration camps proliferate?

Collis 

Mailing that letter is about as effective as throwing it in the trash.

I would further observe that the Christian religion deplores all war,
but finds defensive wars both just and necessary if they are waged
according to the principles of proportionate means, expected success,
respect for non-combatants, legitimate authority, etc.

/john

    RE: .121
    
    Or as effective as pointing out correct german spelling?
    
    Cuts both ways, you know.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .120

    I've though much the same thing. How can we stand idly by and 
    do nothing while this is happening. Talking is doing nothing. 
    Embargoes hurt only those without weapons. I blame the pacifists
    in Europe and the US almost as much as I blame those doing the
    killing.

    			Alfred

re .122

	What?

	Pointing out correct spelling might prevent future misspellings.

	Complaining to the IRS is a waste of time.  The complaint needs
	to be sent to those who have some say in the matter: Congress,
	for example.

/john

    RE: .124
    
    It's the same sort of thing, john, making a statement when you know
    that you are right, but the statement will not do anything.
    
    Hey, I write letters to Congressmen all the time.....I really don't
    expect that my letter will have any impact.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 369.123 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I've though much the same thing. How can we stand idly by and 
>     do nothing while this is happening. Talking is doing nothing. 
>     Embargoes hurt only those without weapons. I blame the pacifists
>     in Europe and the US almost as much as I blame those doing the
>     killing.
  
        Of course, taking up arms isn't necessarily the only
        alternative to "doing nothing".

        While "doing nothing" may be ineffective, doing the wrong
        thing might also be ineffective -- or possibly worse.

        Bob

    
>        Of course, taking up arms isn't necessarily the only
>        alternative to "doing nothing".
    
    Quite right. However, sometimes using force is the only thing that
    works. To forbid it's use is to condone that which only force can
    stop.
    
    			Alfred

    .121  I would observe that such observations as you've provided
    are not rooted in the principles taught by Christ.
    
    As to whether or not it is effective, it doesn't matter.  As a
    Christian, I must be faithful to the leadings of the Spirit and
    my conscience.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    (.124 Covert)
    
    	If you have read the whole letter you would have seen that
    a copy was being sent to each my U.S. Senators, U.S. Representative,
    and the White House.
    
    Richard
    

Note 9.1045

>    Richard, you have always impressed me as an activist, not a pacifist.

I gotta clear this one up right away.  A pacifist is not passive, or at least,
doesn't have to be passive to be accurately termed a pacifist.

I am an activist.  I am a Christian.  To my mind, that means being a pacifist.
Your mileage may vary.

>    Do you believe FDR's intervention in Europe was correct or incorrect?

I don't know.
    
>    No, it means to be a testimony but have a solid defense.  Our country
>    would not exist without it...face it!
    
I'm not Eric, but from my vantage point it means we trust more in chariots
and warhorses than we do in God.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .130 I've always thought of you as a militant pacifist. :-)

    			Alfred

    .131  Alfred,
    
    	That's probably not a bad description.
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard
    

	"When the judge sentenced me for 'unlawful leafleting' on Tax Day
to three years of federal probation with a special condition requiring me
to pay my war taxes, he reprimanded me, saying that St. Paul had urged
Christians to obey civil laws.  I reminded him that St. Paul had done
some of his best writing from jail.  The matter ended there.  But the
judge's comment was evidence that he understood the source of my tax
refusal."

William Ramsey - director of the St. Louis area American Friends Service
Committee.  Ramsey is a member of St. Cronan Catholic Church and the
father of five children.

Isaiah 31:1  Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on
horses, and trust in chariots, because [they are] many; and in
horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto
the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!

Psalm 20:7  Some [trust] in chariots, and some in horses: but we
will remember the name of the LORD our God.

Psalm 76:5  The stouthearted are spoiled, they have slept their
sleep: and none of the men of might have found their hands.
76:6  At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, both the chariot and
horse are cast into a dead sleep.

"From the first to the fourth century, most Christians would neither engage
in Rome's military campaigns nor justify killing as a means to achieve one's
goals.  This consistent practice caused the non-Christian Celsus (AD 178)
to reproach them: 'If all men were to do the same as you, there would be
nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion.'

o  St. Justin Martyr (165) writes: 'We who formerly murdered one another
now not only do not make war upon our enemies, but, that we may not lie or
deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.'

o  St. Clement of Alexandria (220) writes: 'Various peoples incite the passions
of war by martial music; Christians employ only the Word of God, the instrument
of peace.'

o  St. Cyprian (258) lamented that, although homicide when committed by
individuals was a crime, it was considered a virtue by the pagans when
carried on publicly.

After AD 170 there were isolated reports of Christians in the Roman army,
but it appears that they acted as police rather than soldiers.  St. Martin
of Tours (397) remained in the Roman army for two years after his conversion.
But, when he was called upon to participate in battle, he resigned from the
service stating: 'I am a soldier of Christ, I cannot fight.'"

From "Peace, War and the Christian Conscience," by Joseph J. Fahey.
Published by the Christophers, New York, NY.

	"I have often wondered why it is that a family which would make
a great protest if the government took away their automobile or even their
dog, says nothing when the government takes away their sons."

					- Mildred Scott Olmsted

ARTICLES OF FAITH (EVANGELICAL MENNONITE CHURCH)

E. 2. CARNAL WARFARE.  We believe it is contrary to the teachings of Christ
      and the New Testament for Christians to take up arms in wars of
      aggression, revenge, and self defense. (Matt 5:44, 26:51-52, Rom
      12:17-21, II Cor 10:3-4, I Thess 5:15, I Pet 2:21-23, Jno 15:12,
      Gal 5:13-15, I Pet 3:8-9, I Jno 3:15, 23)

===============================================================================
The preceding from the Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds,
1st Edition.

    Richard:
    
    If this is the case, then how come Jesus made this statement to a
    soldier of war??
    
    "Be Content with your Wages."
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

    I believe the soldiers in Jesus' era served in a constabulary capacity.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Okay, let me try it this way.
    
    Jesus commended a soldier for his great faith.  He was a centurion who
    was in command of 100 other soldiers.  Probably sent some of them to
    their death!  Jesus didn't command him to leave the military!  
    
    Correcto!?

369.138

>    If this is the case, then how come Jesus made this statement to a
>    soldier of war??
    
>    "Be Content with your Wages."
    
Not to quibble, Jack, but it was John the Baptist, not Jesus.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 369.140

>    Jesus commended a soldier for his great faith.  He was a centurion who
>    was in command of 100 other soldiers.  Probably sent some of them to
>    their death!  Jesus didn't command him to leave the military!

Neither did Jesus invite the Roman officer to become one of his followers.

Jack, I realize you could probably cite seemingly contrary biblical
references all day.  I've encountered them so frequently I could probably
cite them for you.  But I'd rather not.

Besides, I do not pretend to have all the right answers.  There is a breed
of Christian who does, but I am not one of them.

I simply entered a portion of the Articles of Faith of the Evangelical
Mennonite Church (369.137) because I found it informationally relevant
to this string.  I intend to enter the statement adopted by the Dunkard
Brethren in the near future, also.

Peace,
Richard

re 369.140

;    Okay, let me try it this way.
    
;    Jesus commended a soldier for his great faith.  He was a centurion who
;    was in command of 100 other soldiers.  Probably sent some of them to
;    their death!  Jesus didn't command him to leave the military!

 The soldier was a Roman and not a follower of Jesus. Also it wasn't until
 much later when Cornelius and his family became Christian that the way
 was open to Gentiles.

 But Jack, when you see an unbeliever express great faith and commend them,
 do you also feel that you need to point out their faults at the same time?.


 Phil.

    Not necessarily.
    
    I was just curious as to how you folks would answer the question,
    that's all!
    
    -Jack

re 369.144

 Jack,

 Sorry, that was an unfair question on my part.

 Phil.

    No-no-no...not at all!  It was a point worthy of consideration!
    
    -Jack

BIBLE TEACHINGS (DUNKARD BRETHREN)

28.  That carnal warfare is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that it
     is inconsistent, therefore, for Christians to manifest a quarellsome
     disposition in the home, in the church, in society, or in business;
     that it is unscriptural to take vengeance upon enemies, or to grasp
     carnal weapons to inflict injury upon or take the life of our fellow
     men on the field of battle, or under any circumstances whatsoever. --
     Matt 5:38-40; Luke 2:14; John 18:36; Romans 12:17-21; II Cor 10:4.

===============================================================================
The preceding from the Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds,
1st Edition.

    re.369.140
    
    this verse you quoted is an example of the law of believing.  It works
    for any one.  You do not have to be a Christian to apply the law of
    believing just believe.
    
    S.I.T.
    
    Tom

DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF THE OLD GERMAN BAPTIST BRETHREN

WARFARE.  Consistency demands that we refrain from supporting the cause of
war in any way, also refusing to join or support any peacetime organization
which may use violent means.  As did our Lord Jesus, we choose to suffer,
rather than retaliate, and we refuse all violent methods of self-defense.
In short, we believe that the Sermon on the Mount can be lived today, and
that it has always been the rule of His Church.  True Christians are
"peace makers," not "peace breakers."  True CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION to war
is not found only in literally obeying a few Scriptures but springs from
a life in which the Spirit of Jesus has subdued the passions that make
violence possible, a "new life" lived on a plane above the causes and
occasions of war.

===============================================================================
The preceding from the Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds,
1st Edition.

    Richard, I understand the perspective.  I watched Geronimo last night
    and for the first time watching a movie, cringed at what the Mexican
    soldiers did to the Indian women and children.
    
    Yet (I know it has been discussed...but I'm still struggling with
    this) at the same time, the book of Joshua has one of a few
    explanations...
    
    1. God lead Israel into battle.
    2. Joshua was a warmonger...as was Moses the great prophet and
       lawgiver.
    3. The Canaanites, Hitites, Perezites, etc. were so vile and sinful,
       God used Israel to judge them.
    
    Option 2 simply isn't consistent with what Jesus preached on...yet it
    is very consistent with the way God the Father dealt with the peoples
    of the earth, i.e. the Babylonian exile, The flood, etc.
    
    Please speak to this or provide a pointer how you reconcile the two.
    Jesus was always in harmony with the will of God!!!
    
    -Jack 

    I meant to say that option 1 and 3 are consistent with the way God the
    Father worked!

re Note 369.150 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Yet (I know it has been discussed...but I'm still struggling with
>     this) at the same time, the book of Joshua has one of a few
>     explanations...
>     
>     1. God lead Israel into battle.
>     2. Joshua was a warmonger...as was Moses the great prophet and
>        lawgiver.
>     3. The Canaanites, Hitites, Perezites, etc. were so vile and sinful,
>        God used Israel to judge them.
>     
>     Option 2 simply isn't consistent with what Jesus preached on...yet it
>     is very consistent with the way God the Father dealt with the peoples
>     of the earth, i.e. the Babylonian exile, The flood, etc.
  
        There's something present in options 1 and 3 that is missing
        in the context of any secular society: "God".

        I suspect that many if not most Christian pacifists would
        take up arms if and when they truly believed that God was
        directing them to do so.

        On the other hand, I can completely understand if they would
        refuse to take such orders from *any* human.

        Bob

re Note 369.149 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> In short, we believe that the Sermon on the Mount can be lived today, and
> that it has always been the rule of His Church.  True Christians are
> "peace makers," not "peace breakers."  

        It was so discouraging to watch a few minutes of the 700 Club
        last week in which Jimmy Carter's efforts to seek peace were
        briefly ridiculed by Pat Robertson and company.

        Why do (I presume otherwise sensible) Christians leap from
        the (scripturally defensible) position that Christ's second
        coming will be preceded by a great battle to a position that
        it is stupid, or even un-Christian, to seek peace in this
        world?


        Yes, the peacemakers of this world are blessed, but
        unfortunately they are also scorned by many, including many
        Christians.

        Bob

    .150
    
    Remember Manifest Destiny?  The theology that drove Manifest Destiny
    rather closely paralleled the seizing of the "Promised Land" as recorded
    in the Hebrew Bible.
    
    Incidentally, I wrestled with many of these same questions and doubts
    myself at one time.  No single argument resulted in resolution.  And
    therefore, I know that I will not be the one who convinces you, if
    indeed you ever become convinced.  As it suggests in the statement of
    the Baptist Brethren (369.149), it's something that happens inwardly.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

as a general question, are christian pacifists justified in taking up arms
against satan?



andreas.

    Richard:
    
    The Spirit works in very unique ways.  Instead of a Rah Rah attitude, I 
    am attempting to understand the full picture.  Regardless, we have to 
    acknowledge that God did in fact use war to accomplish His
    purpose...and He promoted it to drive out the inhabitants of the
    promised land.  Does this necessarily justify war on our part, I would
    say no!  
    
    Re: The Pat Robertson thing.  I believe Pat most likely looks at this
    from a eschalological standpoint.  The idea of peace in the middle east 
    represent the birthpangs of the end times to some.  Remember the
    prophecies in Daniel, the truces and peace accords made with
    AntiChrist.  "For they will cry peace peace...then sudden destruction."
    
    -Jack

    My understanding is that Satan is a spiritual being and therefore not
    affected by bullets, knives or radioactivity... It's like asking if we
    are justified in taking up arms against shadows. Satan fears the Light;
    he fears truth, love and justice. These are the weapons with which
    Satan is conquered.


    Eric

correct me if i am wrong. as far as i understand so far, both god and satan
are spiritual beings and neither can be fought against directly. i presume
therefore that either is fought by fighting its subjects. correct?


andreas.

    .158  Andreas,
    
    According to the letter to the Ephesian church, our "battle" must be
    waged with such weapons and accouterments as truth, faith, salvation,
    the good news of peace, and the word God's Spirit gives -- the kind of
    elements Eric spoke of.
    
    As the motto of the Baptist Peace Fellowship says:  "Peace, like war,
    must be waged."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

richard, maybe i should've posted the question in another topic. 

i entered .158 in the hope that someone with a folkloristic image of satan 
might come forward and then give reasons where and why he must fight satan.

the reasoning behind it being - if god is a spirit (from the recent image of 
god discussion), then if satan is a spirit, then if folks can be the 'property'
of god the spirit (a recent claim [and one which i also consider folkloristic]) 
then folks could also be the 'property' of satan the spirit. 
then what happens if god's folks meet satan's folks.

as i said in my intro, i neither believe in god nor satan. though i personally 
consider believing in god whilst NOT believing in satan perfectly healthy and 
sane. as a matter of fact, imo belief in a personified evil called satan is 
infantile. but i have a fear that folks who believe in both god AND a 
personified satan can become a danger to the average person.

hence my question. what happens if christians who belief in god AND satan meet
folks who THEY THINK are the property of satan??


andreas.

if there is a more appropriate place for .160, mods feel free to move the
reply and to delete this one. thanks.


andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I find your "infantile" label quite humerous...considering Jesus most
    certainly believed Satan was a real being.  Furthermore, the prophets
    of the old testament affirmed his existence as well.  
    
    -Jack

    .160 & .161
    
    Andreas,
    
    Perhaps continuing in one of the Satan topics or initiating a new topic
    would be in order.  I suspect that I may have been the only MOD who was
    ever too picky about such things, however.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Quakers (The Religious Society of Friends) are largely a non-creedal
collectivity, and so I have no official corporate statement to present.
However, Friends have what is called a Peace Testimony, which has been
integral to Quaker faith and practice since the mid-1600s:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                <<< GRIM::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]QUAKER.NOTE;2 >>>
                       -< Religious Society of Friends >-
================================================================================
Note 14.0                      The peace testimony                    10 replies
CSC32::M_VALENZA "Note with gusto."                  15 lines   7-MAR-1990 21:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace
    and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of
    God, seeking the good and welfare and doing that which tends to the
    peace of all.  We know that wars and fightings proceed from lusts of
    men (as Jas iv. 1-3), out of which lusts and the Lord hath redeemed us,
    and so out of the occasion of war.  The occasion of which war, and war
    itself (wherein envious men, who are lovers of themselves more than
    lovers of God, lust, kill, and desire to have men's lives and estates)
    ariseth from lust.  All bloody principles and practices, we, as to our
    own particulars, do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and
    fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence
    whatsoever.  And this is our testimony to the whole world."

    From a January, 1661 declaration in response to persecution by the
    King.  Cited in George Fox's journal.

no problem jack. i also consider 100% belief in the correctness of the word 
in the scriptures unrealistic (to put it mildly) in the light of the knowledge 
that most (all!) of what is in the new testament has been written after the 
life-time of jesus, by authors who knew jesus only by hear-say and that what 
has been written has been translated innumerable times.

in this light, reading about jesus you are not freed from the need of
interpreting, reinterpreting!

for instance, the story in the new testament of where jesus is offered all 
worldly goods by satan is a perfectly good one. but does it prove the existance 
of satan? the point of the story is quite obviously the temptation of jesus,
the prospect of being rich and powerful. the point of the story is hardly the
person of satan. in fact the way satan is portrayed in the story is pretty 
irrelevant to the point of the story, which is the power of the temptation. 
satan could have been merely a thought in jesus' brain. whether the person of 
satan is real or symbolic, doesn't take any weight off the choice made by 
jesus to renounce worldly goods.


just my opinion.

andreas.

    I agree with you on the issue of the purpose of the temptations...only
    in that personifying Satan was not the objective.  I believe the
    purpose of Christ spending forty days in the desert was to affirm his
    reason for coming here.  He proved his worthiness as messiah by not
    falling into sin.  He overcame physical, power, and spiritual
    temptations in the three accounts.  
    
    Jesus confirmed the person of Satan in His words here in John chapter 8
    when speaking to the Jewish rulers of that time..."You are of your
    father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do.  He was a
    murderer from the beginning and lives not in the truth.  For whenever
    he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature for he is a liar and the
    father of lies."  Jesus refers to the devil in as somebody of
    personhood.  If you get a chance, Pauls letter to the Ephesians,
    chapter 6 I believe...maybe 5, also confirms that there is spiritual
    wickedness in high places.  
    
    -Jack 

re Note 369.165 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER:

> no problem jack. i also consider 100% belief in the correctness of the word 
> in the scriptures unrealistic (to put it mildly) 

        As did the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 13:

        13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 
        13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which
        is in part shall be done away. 
        13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as
        a child, I thought as a child: but when I
        became a man, I put away childish things. 
        13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face
        to face: now I know in part; but then
        shall I know even as also I am known. 

        Even the prophesy of Scripture, even the teachings of Paul,
        are partial and imperfect.

        Jesus said, in John 14:26: "But the Comforter, [which is] the
        Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall
        teach you all things, ...." but clearly the work of teaching
        "all things" was not complete in Scripture.

        Bob

re: Note 369.167 by LGP30::FLEISCHER

>> no problem jack. i also consider 100% belief in the correctness of the word 
>> in the scriptures unrealistic (to put it mildly) 
>
>        As did the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 13:
> ...
>        13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face
>        to face: now I know in part; but then
>        shall I know even as also I am known. 
>
>        Even the prophesy of Scripture, even the teachings of Paul,
>        are partial and imperfect.
> ...
>        teach you all things, ...." but clearly the work of teaching
>        "all things" was not complete in Scripture.

Incomplete does not imply erroneous.

Paul, in 1 Cor 13, places this as the trailing part of the well-known
passage on love - I believe his point is to assume one doesn't have perfect
knowledge, and using 'perfect' knowledge as a justification for not loving
someone.  Out of faith, hope, love, go with love.

Same with the Comforter, Holy Spirit in John 14:26 - He would come not
only to teach all things, but also to remind the disciples of what Jesus
has already said - there is no hint of incorrectness on the part of what
has already been said - only a hint of yet more to come.  In fact, this
is born out further along in the same passage (John 16:12,13) "I have
much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.  But when he, the
Spirit of all truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth..." (NIV).

-Steve

"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say
 of war: 'This way of settling differences is not just.'"

					- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I received a very nice note in the mail today asking me to consider
joining Pax Christi, the National Catholic Peace Movement:

    

Pax Christi USA
(address)

Dear Friend,

I know we share a passion for peace, a commitment to justice.

I know, too, that you are a busy person with a great deal to read, so this
note will be brief and to the point.

Please examine the enclosed brochure and consider becoming a member of
Pax Christi USA, the national Catholic peace movement.

In peace,

Michael Affleck
National Coordinator

    
Pax Christi USA strives to create a world that
reflects the Peace of Christ by exploring, articulating,
and witnessing to the call of Christian nonviolence.
This work begins in personal life and extends to
communities of reflection and action to transform
structures of society.

Pax Christi USA rejects war, preparations for war, and
every form of violence and domination.  It advocates
primacy of conscience, economic and social justice,
and respect for creation.

Pax Christi USA commits itself to peace education and,
with help from its bishop members, promotes the gospel
imperative of peacemaking as a priority in the Catholic
church in the United States.  Through the efforts of all
its members and in cooperation with other groups, Pax Christi
USA works toward a more peaceful, just, and sustainable
world.

Pax Christi USA is a section of Pax Christi International, the
Catholic peace movement.

re Note 369.170 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE

> Pax Christi USA
> (address)
  
        It would be nice to have the address!

        Thanks,
        Bob

    .172
    
    I am happy to share it with you.  I just didn't want to come across
    as soliciting.
    
    	Pax Christi USA
    	348 East Tenth Street
    	Erie, PA 16503
    
    	814/453-4955
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

(From the brochure)

PAX CHRISTI IS OUR NAME.  The 'peace of Christ' is a constant challenge to
us all to become peacemakers.

PAX CHRISTI IS INTERNATIONAL.  Founded in France in 1945 in an effort to
reconcile France and Germany after World War II, Pax Christi has 26 branches
throughout the world.

PAX CHRISTI IS COMMUNITY.  Nearly 12,000 people -- lay persons, religious,
clergy and youth belong to Pax Christi USA.  This includes 92 bishops, 400
religious communities, Living Stones parishes and 250 local groups which
meet for prayer, study and action.

PAX CHRISTI IS THE GOSPEL.  Members root their peacemaking in the gospel
and, through prayer, commit themselves to the Christian principles of
nonviolence and justice for all.

PAX CHRISTI IS RESOURCES.  We have the materials and experience to help
people of all ages better understand the issues of peace and justice.
Pax Christi reaches over 100,000 people through its publications and
programs.

Portraits of members:

Joan Chittister, OSB
Author & Lecturer

Thomas J. Gumbelton
Bishop
Founding Member of Pax Christi USA

Rosemary Radford Ruether
Georgia Harkness Professor of Applied Theology
[Applied Theology -- Hey, I like that idea!!]

Martin Sheen
Actor
Peace & Justice Activist

			 A Nation of Cowards

                                           Jeffrey R. Snyder


                               OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of
self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in
history.  Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the
cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual,
and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and
self-determination.  This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent
notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's
"self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will
naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion,
responsible member of society.

   And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality
and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement
establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the
threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the
attacker what he wants.  If the crime under consideration is rape,
there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion
quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the
risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may
acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which
really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular
phone.

   Now how can this be?  How can a person who values himself so highly
calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault?  How can one who
believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination
passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination?
How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the
goods?

   The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency.  The
advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods
is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and
that no amount of property is worth it.  Put aside, for a moment, the
outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal
violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social
contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want."
For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not
about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control.  Evidently,
someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media
that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about
property.

   Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but
also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty.  If the
individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging
in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime
always violates the victim's dignity.  It is, in fact, an act of
enslavement.  Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth
your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it
can hardly be said to exist.

                         The Gift of Life

   Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely
believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life
when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a
coward and to breach one's duty to one's community.  A sermon given in
Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend
oneself with suicide:

   He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no
   authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense,
   incurs the guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek
   the continuance of his life, and nature itself teaches every creature
   to defend itself.

   "Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public
discourse.  In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the
bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity.  "Self-respect" implies
that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree
to which one lives up to them.  "Self-esteem" simply means that one
feels good about oneself.  "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery
and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of
life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others.  Now, judging
by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a
discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully,
evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our
degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others.  These are
signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the
hollowness of our souls.

   It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without
talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim.  Crime
is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it,
permit it, submit to it.  We permit and encourage it because we do not
fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens.  Crime is
not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and
prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd
technicalities.  The defect is there, in our character.  We are a
nation of cowards and shirkers.

                        Do You Feel Fortunate?

   In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the
FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that
a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in
an auto accident.  Despite this, most people readily believe that the
existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take
full measures to protect themselves.  The police, however, are not
personal bodyguards.  Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime,
both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact.
As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect
anyone in particular.  You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you
from being the victim of a crime.

   Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very
good.  Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of
them.  Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet
your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you
actually need them.

   Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape,
you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in
progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone.
Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to
show up.  Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all
crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within
five minutes.  The idea that protection is a service people can call to
have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often
mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a
cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza.  See who shows up
first."

   Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves
that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones.
Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover
that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these
imaginary boundaries.  If, however, you understand that crime can occur
anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or
mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you
are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in
the hands of others.

    RE: .176

    While I haven't read the entire note yet, what I have read doesn't
    seem to fit the example set by Christ, the apostles and the early
    Christians. In fact much of what I've read of the note strikes me as
    professing a doctrine quite counter to the teachings of Christ.

    Shalom,
    	Eric

    Eric:
    
    Feel free to read it in its entirety.  Submitting to the will of
    criminals is sin in my opinion.
    
    -Jack

    The pacifists I know are not cowards.  Perhaps the ones you do are,
    Jack.  Or perhaps you really don't know any at all.
    
    I would suggest that your essay does not truly belong in this string,
    that it is perhaps fodder for a new string.
    
    Richard
    

    Probably.  And I don't condemn pacifism per sae.  But I certainly don't
    condone criminals the right to subvert the populace out of force.  The
    point was made clear in the writing that the feminist movement calls
    rape an act of control and violence and needs to be fought against.  I
    agree with this.  Would Christian pacifism also concur?
    
    -Jack

    Pacifism is *not* passivism.  Don't but into that false notion.
    Christian pacifists would not stand by and do nothing in a rape
    situation as you apparently think they would.
    
    Richard
    

    No...I don't think you would Richard or many pacifists for that matter.
    
    Would a Christian pacifist consider any action done to a perpetrator
    over that of entrusting your local police nonpacifist?
    
    I'm sorry if it seems like I'm inferring anything...I don't mean to. 
    I'm just trying to learn where pacifism draws the line on deterring
    crime.
    
    -Jack

    .182
    
    Jack,
    
    I doubt that you really believe the threat of deadly force or punishment
    is what best prevents crime.
    
    The toughest state in the union in this regard is Louisiana.  In spite
    of the "deterrence," crime continues to flourish there.
    
    Richard
    

    Okay...but light of gun bans in DC, crime is rampant there...far moreso
    than Louisiana!!
    
    -Jack

    Makes one wonder what's at the core of it all, doesn't it?
    
    Shouldn't we be concerned more with the ailment than with the symptoms?
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I am parroting somebody else here so this isn't from me.
    
    I was listening to a black leader of some kind on CSPAN the other day.
    What he said was that the problems are from within the black culture in
    the inner city and it is time to stop blaming the white man for the
    demise of African Americans in poverty.  He was of course opposed to
    Affirmative Action.
    
    -Jack

    .186
    
    Jack,
    
    Yeah?  Then it shouldn't surprise you that not all black Americans
    supported the efforts of Martin Luther King, either.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    For what it's worth, Martin Luther King thought Jesse Jackson was an
    opportunist and didn't like him very much.  Furthermore, I believe MLK
    would have disapproved of what is going on today! 
    
    -Jack

    And there was conflict between Peter and Paul and between Jesus'
    disciples and John the Baptists disciples.  There was conflict between
    Paul and the women of Corinth.
    
    What is it that causes so much conflict in this world?
    
    What is it that causes Good idealist people searching for a vision of a 
    better way to be so emotionally and physically violent with each other.
    
    What is it that causes conflict in our homes between husband and wife,
    wife and husband, parent and children. children and children.
    
    What is it that causes conflict in notes files.
    
    How do each and everyone of us contribute to a better world?
    
    
                                     Patricia
                         
    

	Jack, you can no more say what MLK would thing about Jessie today than
I could. With the changing times that have happened from MLK's day to right
now, who knows how he would feel about anything. 


Glen

    
    Well, I read the article posted in .176 and stand firm that the ideals
    and actions which the author holds so high are at odds with the
    teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the example set by the apostles
    and early Christians. It is not so much about submitting to the will of
    criminals as it is with the equating the loss of a television set with
    rape. The author and his supporters may be equally devastated with the
    loss of their car as with the rape of their daughter, but I personally
    don't feel that strongly about the stuff I own.

    The article has to do with the violent, lethal opposition to criminals,
    indescriminant of the severity of their crime. In fact, it is a fine
    example of dead-end, binary thinking: you either submit to the criminal
    or kill the bastard. Life is not a series of true/false options. Not
    wanting to kill, maim or mutilate every criminal is not the same thing
    as wanting to passively submit to criminals. 
    
    Eric

    .191
    
    I agree.  The connection between .176 and the life and teachings of
    Jesus is not very well established.  Neither is the connection between
    .176 and Christian pacifism.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Marin Luther King, on the other hand, is connected to this topic by
    virtue of his adherence to nonviolence and his stance in opposition
    to the Viet Nam War.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    	re .190
    
    	That's worth remembering the next time you want to use "what
    	would Jesus say/do about that" as a club to bash your opponent.

    Joe,
    
    re .190
    
    Are you refering to the Historic Jesus or the living Christ?
    
                                     Patricia

    Actually the charges identified in .176 probably were levelled against
    Jesus when he continued to keep company with sinners and tax
    collectors.
    
    Then I'm thinking of the Demoniac who Jesus' cures.  I have a vivid
    picture of the ending of that story when Jesus and the former Demoniac
    are sitting down conversing, chatting, and generally enjoying each
    others company.
    
    The spectators saw this and they were afraid.  
    
    They asked Jesus to leave.
    
    
                                     Patricia

| <<< Note 369.195 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>


| Are you refering to the Historic Jesus or the living Christ?

	Patricia, very good question. Joe? 


Glen

  ZZZ   Are you refering to the Historic Jesus or the living Christ?
    
    First tell me the difference between the two, then I can give an
    opinion...even though it's directed to Joe I would like to answer this.
    
    Thanks,
    
    
    -Jack

    MLK was a person we know from Historic Accounts.
    
    
    The Historic Jesus is the figure we can know from the Gospel accounts
    of Jesus' life.
    
    The living Christ is the Pre existent, Post Resurrection Child of God
    available, today, tomorrow, and forever.
    
    Joe stated that since Glen cannot know what MLK would be thinking,
    feeling, saying today, that Glen's question regarding what would Jesus
    think, feel say today.
    
    Since I think we can know the living Christ today, I think Glen's
    question is a very valid question.  I was trying to get at why Joe did
    not think Glen's question was valid.  Can we only know Jesus as we
    know MLK.   That was the context of my question.
    
                               Patricia

        <<< Note 369.195 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Are you refering to the Historic Jesus or the living Christ?
    
    	I don't know.  Who is someone really referring to when s/he
    	says, "What would Jesus say..." ?   I'm really not the one
    	who is referring to Jesus in such cases, so you will have
    	to ask the person asking the question, not me.
    
    	So you speak of "knowing" the living Jesus.   Great.  We've
    	(collectively as a conference) been round and round with
    	how one "knows" Jesus.  Specifically for you and me, we have
    	both rejected each others' source and method of that "knowledge"
    	so I really see no benefit in going through it again.

	Wow Joe, what a side step you did. Fred Astair would have been proud of
you.

	Joe, you know that one can know the living Jesus thinks when He tells
us using <insert method He chooses>, and that one can not know what MLK would
think about todays world. 


Glen

    	No side-step at all, Glen.  How can I know what version of
    	Jesus is in someone else's mind -- especially when they are
    	choosing to use Jesus as a stick?
    
    	And as for <insert method He chooses>, as I've already stated,
    	we are hopelessly deadlocked on discussing that further.  Simply
    	stating it as you did in .201 doesn't make a discussion.  You're
    	welcome to state it, of course, but you may as well know (if it
    	isn't clear already) that <insert method He chooses> as you've
    	already argued it many times has been duly rejected from this
    	keyboard (among others) and is pre-rejected for future discussions,
    	not unlike your rejection of my Biblical basis for knowing God.
    
    	Again, I see no value in discussing it further.  You'll just
    	have to find someone else with whom to take up that particular
    	discussion.

    Eric:
    
    Bottom line is that places like Singapore are the most well kept and
    safest places to live while Washington DC and Los Angeles are the most
    decrepid places to live.  Something to think about!
    
    -Jack

    
    Singapore is also predominantly a non-Christian country. And Russians
    were "safer" under the atheistic Communists, too. So I guess the
    article is right; the teachings of Jesus are a poor model for a
    "safe" society.  Something to think about, indeed.

    Eric

| <<< Note 369.202 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| No side-step at all, Glen. How can I know what version of Jesus is in someone 
| else's mind 

	Your .194 seemed to show you knew what version....

| especially when they are choosing to use Jesus as a stick?

	If holding you to your own beliefs standards is using Jesus as a stick, 
then you should go back and really see what it is you actually mean. 

| And as for <insert method He chooses>, as I've already stated, we are 
| hopelessly deadlocked on discussing that further.  

	Joe, unless you believe that He only uses one method of teaching us
something EVERYTIME, then you would be right.



Glen

              <<< Note 369.205 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

>	Your .194 seemed to show you knew what version....

	.194 was just a suggestion.  Food for thought.   You don't 
    	have to take everything from me as a personal attack, you know.

    Eric:
    
    I'm comparing justice systems in the world today.  Singapores serious
    look at crime yielded them a beautiful country.  Washington DCs liberal 
    view on justice yielded them a calamity!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 369.207 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Singapores serious
>     look at crime yielded them a beautiful country.  Washington DCs liberal 
>     view on justice yielded them a calamity!!
  
        Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Jack.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Would you move your family to the slums of DC?  I'm inclined to think
    not.  Jesse Jackson sure as heck wouldn't!
    
    I have no affinity for socialist countries or governments that rule
    with an iron thumb.  I'm talking about losing the ideals of 1970s
    liberalism and moving toward meting out justice appropriate to the
    crime.
    
    -Jack

    re 200
    
    Joe,
    
    My faith is based on my attempting to live "In Christ" as identified by
    Paul in 1Cor 2.  The way I attempt to live in Christ is to ask myself
    that question, "What would Christ do in this situation" as the basis
    for my action.   For me, Christ is the Incarnation of the creative,
    responsive love of God.  The Gospels show us very clearly how God
    incarnate in a fully human being lives "In Christ".
    
    I believe our salvation and the salvation of the world depends upon how we
    live in Christ.  I believe that we have to experience the living Christ
    before any of this makes sense to us.  I believe that there are many
    ways of experiencing the living Christ.  One is through the tradition
    and authority of the church, one is through the Living Word of God, one
    is through the transcending mystery and wonderful available to all
    people at all times.  The essential thing is not how we are pointed to
    the living Christ, but that we are pointed to that living Christ.
    
                                               Patricia
    
    
                              

re Note 369.209 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I have no affinity for socialist countries or governments that rule
>     with an iron thumb.  I'm talking about losing the ideals of 1970s
>     liberalism and moving toward meting out justice appropriate to the
>     crime.
  
        Can you supply even one reference in which some spokesperson
        for "1970s liberalism" says that the types of crimes
        committed in the slums of DC shouldn't be punished?

        Bob

    No in words but in actions.
    
    Presidents and governors from the last 25 years have appointed some of
    the most liberal thinking appellate judges in the history of our
    country.  People got upset at George Bushes revolving door commercial
    with Willie Horton....However, the ad truly revealed the mentality our
    judiciary system has become in our lifetime.
    
    The liberal establishment made the mistake of believing that hardened
    criminals can be reformed through the worldly system of psychology and 
    sensitivity to the criminal...instead of the victim.  This was indeed a
    costly miscalculation.  Currently, 82% of hard crime is committed by
    repeat offenders.  These are people who have a tendency toward crime.
    I believe these criminals can be reformed through a true coversion to
    accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior.  What happens is these bad
    apples who cannot be reformed through human intervention know the
    system well.  They accrue good time, get free shelter, insurance and
    three squares a day.  Then when they serve about a fifth of their
    sentence, our penal system releases the wolves and yet somebody else
    becomes a victim of crime.  
    
    I believe presidents and governors who willingly appoint bleeding
    hearts to the bench have foregone their duty as a leader.
    
    -Jack

>    ... People got upset at George Bushes revolving door commercial
>    with Willie Horton....However, the ad truly revealed the mentality our
>    judiciary system has become in our lifetime.

The ad truly revealed that racism and bigotry are alive and well. The
race trump card still plays well.

Think not? Well, consider that if'n the point was that we're all getting
soft on crime and not about racism, why didn't they find a white man to
demonstrate the point?

BTW, the author of the referenced ad, in keeping with the teachings of
Christ, publicly apologized for it, prior to dying of cancer.

TTom

ZZ    The ad truly revealed that racism and bigotry are alive and well. The
ZZ    race trump card still plays well.
    
    Correct...I do think not!  To infer that racism was involved simply
    because a black man was picked instead of a white man is sheer
    speculation on your part.  You have absolutely no basis for insinuating
    this other than parroting the media.  That's like saying OJ committed
    the murder because the dog barked.  Does the author of this ad have a
    previous record of racism in his advertisements?
    
 ZZ   Think not? Well, consider that if'n the point was that we're all getting
 ZZ   soft on crime and not about racism, why didn't they find a white man to
 ZZ   demonstrate the point?
    
    Because TTom, the Willie Horton incident was nationally known at the
    time and was fresh on everybodys mind.  It was the perfect political
    ploy to use by the republicans.  It beautifully portrayed the decrepid
    shape our judiciary system was in.  
    
    The thing Dukakis failed to do was communicate the Reagan
    Administration approved of furlough programs for federal prisons also. 
    That was sheer stupidity on his part as he could have defrayed that
    whole campaign had he used his smarts.
    
ZZ    BTW, the author of the referenced ad, in keeping with the teachings of
ZZ    Christ, publicly apologized for it, prior to dying of cancer.
    
    Actually, you are thinking of the Chairman of the National Republican
    Convention, who at the time did not know Christ as his savior.  Lee
    Atwater accepted Christ toward his last few years and apologized to the
    democrats for his meanspirited campaigning...which is simply politics
    all around.  Lee Atwaters wisdom surfaced when he realized his life was
    short and politics in the eternal means nothing.  
    
    I heard the actual creator of the ad on the David Brudnoy show two
    years ago.  He was a very polite man considering the barbs thrown at
    him from the callers.  His POV was that the Horton Ads were there
    strictly to show the inadequacy of Dukakis' judicial policies and lack
    of wisdom.  The race issue wasn't even there TTom but the liberals had
    to have something to make an issue of...hence the Willie Horton thing!
    
    By the way, Willie Horton's girlfriend is still dead and the judicial
    policies of the Dukakis Administration are directly responsible....and
    I hold our former governor in contempt for his lack of vision and
    wisdom.
    
    -Jack

    Is this "make up a fact" day?

    >Because TTom, the Willie Horton incident was nationally known at the
    >time and was fresh on everybodys mind

    I believe the Willy Horton incident was not nationally known *UNTIL* it
    was used in the Bush commercial.

    And denying that racism was a factor in how the commercial was perceived 
    is like denying that the earth is a sphere.  You can argue all you want 
    that Bush, Atwater and the consultants that dreamed up the ad are not 
    racists.  I might even agree with you.  But surely these people are 
    intelligent enough to understand racism and to know how it can be used to 
    manipulate the feelings of voters during an election campaign.  The 
    Democrats do similar things with the issue of class.  Both parties are 
    guilty of appealing to the nation's fears and predjudices.  I can't 
    believe any observer of American politics would deny that.

    /Greg

    Greg:
    
    This isn't make up a fact day.  Willie Horton may not have been knowm
    throughout the coiuntry, granted.  But it is still sheer speculation
    that racism was purposefully injected into this.  Willie Horton was
    probably the most poignant example of a blunder of our judicial system.
    The Horton example was the only one of its kind at the time.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 369.212 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Presidents and governors from the last 25 years have appointed some of
>     the most liberal thinking appellate judges in the history of our
>     country.  

        None of DC's judges were appointed by any governors, and the
        presidency has been in the hands of Republicans for most of
        the last 25 years.
            
        Bob

| <<< Note 369.215 by TALLIS::SCHULER "Greg, DTN 227-4165" >>>


| I can't believe any observer of American politics would deny that.

	Greg, I don't think Jack observes, but sticks with the past. :-)


Glen

    Fact:  Washington DC is a parcel of land that is supposed to be under
    the auspices of the congress.  The judges in DC are only required to
    mete out the justice required under the laws of DC.  The congress has
    been by and large democrat controlled.
    
    Glen, please offer your wisdom as to why the Willie Horton Ads were
    racist...and please offer some substance other than the fact that
    Willie was black!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Racist reactions were clearly a result of the Horton ad.  They
    were an *inevitable* result of the Horton ad.  I can't believe Bush 
    and company were so stupid as to not have been able to predict this.
    
    /Greg

    Greg:
    
    Everything is racist Greg.  A congressman from New York equated the
    cutting of the school lunch program to the holocaust.  My opinion is
    that this person owes the Jewish community a stearn apology.
    
    Congressman Major Owens three weeks ago talked of the school lunch
    program as racist...comparing how congress treated our inner city youth
    to the 250,000,000 blacks that were thrown in the shipping lanes
    between Africa and America (This would be 16 ships per day for 150
    years Greg)...he said that this changed the evolution of the sea and
    that to this day, sharks follow cargo ships today going from Africa
    to the US...totally absurd Greg.  For crying out loud Greg everybodys a
    racist...I'm even considered a racist because I refuse to use the title
    "African American", which I find insensitive to blacks of other
    heritages.
    
    Willie Horton was a thug Greg...and Willie doesn't deserve to not get
    the notariety because of his skin color.  And skin color wasn't even
    inferred within the Ads!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I refused to get dragged into this. I had thought the :-) would
let you in on that. :-)


Glen

    Jack, you are missing my point.
    
    I am not denying that many people are too quick to cry racism.  I've
    seen it plenty of times and I agree it is a problem.
    
    However, I'm not discussing oversensitivity.  I'm talking about how
    politicians knowlingly pander to our worst instincts.
    
    The Horton ad just happens to be one particularly glaring example of
    this shameful behavior.
    
    /Greg
    
    

				    ####
                              #################
                         ###########################
                      #######       ####        #######
                     ######         #  #          ######
                    #####         __#  #__          #####
                   #####         #        #          #####
                   ####            ##  ##             ####
                   ####          ####  ####           ####
                   #####       ######  ######        #####
                    #####    ###### #  # ######     #####
                     ############   #  #   #############
                      #########     ####     ##########
                         ###########################
                              #################
                                    ####

    You communist!
    
    
    
    Just kidding my friend! :-)  
    
    -Jack

    I'm sorry.  It's just that I find racism as a tool being severely
    misused!  I realize politicians use culteral war as a device!
    
    -Jack

>    I'm sorry.  It's just that I find racism as a tool being severely
>    misused!  I realize politicians use culteral war as a device!

And that was exactly the point of Willie Horton.

TTom

    Assuming in this case that politicians used cultural warfare to give
    the aura of racism, did you actually see the commercial for the first
    time and say...my goodness...what racism!?  I looked at it and said, 
    Clever, Bush is focusing on Dukakis' lack of ability to run a
    judiciary.  The fact that Horton was black meant absolutely nothing to
    me...why should it to anybody else?
    
    -Jack

    >The fact that Horton was black meant absolutely nothing to
    >me...why should it to anybody else?
    
    Because, Jack, everybody isn't you.
    
    Viewed from a broader perspective, the Horton ad played on a well 
    established stereotype of the black man as criminal.  It pushed the
    buttons that make middle-class white people cross the street or
    turn the corner when they see a couple of black men walking
    towards them down the sidewalk.   Whether or not that is how *you*
    react in such a situtation (and whether or not such a reaction may
    be justified in certain circumstances) the fact of the matter is 
    significant numbers of Americans *DO* react in that way.  Bush and 
    company knew that.   That is why (IMO) they used a large mug-shot of 
    a black man (Horton) in the ad.  
    
    If they wanted to attack Dukakis' ability to "run a Judiciary" 
    they could have shown pictures of judges with a voice-over telling
    people the number of violent offenders who commited crimes while
    out on furlough.  
    
    I mean, what was the point of showing a picture of a murderer?
    Everybody knows murder is a crime.  According to you, the *real* 
    issue was the 'criminal' behavior of lenient judges (appointed by 
    Gov. Dukakis).  Why was the focus on Horton and not the judge who
    let him out?  
    
    As an aside, presumably Bush's intent was to change the system
    so violent criminals would be inelligble for furloughs.  Do you know 
    if he actually did anything about this during his presidency?
    
    /Greg
    
    
    
    

ZZ    As an aside, presumably Bush's intent was to change the system
ZZ    so violent criminals would be inelligble for furloughs.  Do you
ZZ    know if he actually did anything about this during his presidency?
    
    Highly doubtful.  I'm not sure he was intending to change it.  He
    simply used the Horton case as fodder against Dukakis.
    
    Sadly, the Reverend Jesse Jackson has openly admitted to doing the same
    thing...crossing the street when black youths come his way.  This was
    during a black on black crime convention shown on CSPAN.  I admire his 
    honesty.  
    
    But I do see your point regarding the picture of Horton.  The ad
    probably could have been done differently.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

	Jack, why is it you always refer to someone else when making a point
about a specific person? I would imagine if you were to focus on the person
that is being talked about might make you see what's going on.....but it would
be nice. :-)



Glen

.212 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    The liberal establishment made the mistake of believing that hardened
    criminals can be reformed through the worldly system of psychology and 
    sensitivity to the criminal...instead of the victim.
    [...]
    I believe these criminals can be reformed through a true coversion to
    accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior. 

Just another form of psychology, isn't it?

.216

    The Horton example was the only one of its kind at the time.  

As I recall, this was portrayed as only one example of many, i.e. the whole
system was wrong. So now you're telling me this was a one-shot abberration, not
a common result of a bad system?

Steve

Jack,

You asked about initial impressions. My firsted impression was that it
was absolutely no coincidence that the one they used in portraying
Dukakis as soft on crime was a black man.

My thoughts were that they rang 2 bells with one ad.

TTom

    To some, it may be another form of psychology.  When I wrote that I was
    thinking of the mad man whom Jesus healed by driving the demons into
    the swine.  There is a real powerful difference between a counselor
    helping you through life...man made intervention in the problems of
    other people.  Well intentioned and successful at times.  However, one
    who is truly regenerated is a changed person.  They have in fact
    crucified the old self and have become a new creature.
    
    -Jack

The Catholic Peace Pledge (from World War II)
-------------------------

"I shall always treasure this Catholic peace pledge leaflet as my most
precious possession."

					-- Thomas Merton

Catholic Voluntary Peace Declaration Act:

GOD OF PEACE, I presently declare my goodwill to volunteer for active service
in your blessed ranks of voluntary Catholic peacemakers, men and women, past
and present, of all countries, who alongside other Christian pacifists --
whether in nations where tyranny of conscience charged them with disobedience
to Caesar, or in others where State tolerance for one's personal conscience
was finally gained -- have faithfully confessed their conscientious objection
to supporting national war efforts of conflicting warfare states, avowedly
as already being instead baptized in Christ to renounce all satanic works,
and faithfully militate for your undivided supranatural Christ-commanded
revolutionary non-resistance peace front of the new humanity, and recruit
volunteer peacemakers in this transnational New Testament invincible unbloody
army of your Christ, our Commander-in-Chief, the Pacific King of kings who
has vanquished this satanic world.

				    -----

    Behold!  Your King comes to you, meek and riding on a donkey.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    
    						Matthew 21.5
    

BE IT KNOWN to all that, enrolled in the Catholic volunteer ranks of
disarmed evangelical peacemakers, I take my stand with them in bearing
witness and publicly confessing that:

WHEREAS nation rises against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and
at their war-cry troops of warwagers mobilize into enemy camps under the
war-eagles of bellicose sword-rattling Caesars, nevertheless we Catholic
pacifists throughout the nations, willing to be daughters and sons of
God, citizens and patriots of our Father's heaven-wide Kingdom, flock
instead under the wide-spread wings of our Peace Dove.  Praying for
constancy and patience to the end, we volunteer to rally to the Peace
Call of our meek and humble-hearted Savior, to faithfully serve as
militant confirmed soldiers of our Cross-bearing King who gives us his
peace, not as the world does, by the bloody sword, but as the Lamb of
God by the Blood of his Cross, both as to things on earth as well as
in the heavens.

WHEREAS Catholics in all countries arise from the only Peace Table of
the one and only Lord of lords, whereat we all partake of the same
Bread of Life by which our incorporation to the social Body of Christ
is revitalized, whereat we all drink the Cup of Salvation which makes
us all precious blood-brothers of Christ, from there in holy communion.
we Catholic and other Christian pacifists throughout the nations are
all of one mind and one heart ever to depart from Christ's Peace Table
only to follow, undefended by sword or legions, his pacifist way of the
Cross, and preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of His Peace
whereto we were called into one Body.  No longer can we consent, in any
way whatsoever, to be accomplices in the fratricidal abomination of
national war efforts to slaughter instead of love one another, mindful
to be completely conformed to the exemplar of that greater love
demonstrated for us by Christ himself, according to his own New Commandment.
We voluntarily, each one personally and conscientiously, (in full accord
with the laical non-celibate Rule of St. Francis for the Brothers and
Sisters of Repentance) "refuse to accept death-dealing arms against
anybody whomsoever," let alone members of Christ's body, even the least
of his.

WHEREAS, since Constantine, internecine militarist Christians, along
with the worldly nationalist and imperialist warfare states with which
they join, all alike perpetuate through the centuries the monstrous
atrocities of wars and rumors of wars amongst themselves, always in
self-justification, nevertheless we Catholic and other Christian pacifists
throughout the nations, accounted as sheep for slaughter in the midst of
wolves, praying to persevere to the end, faithfully volunteer to be active
only in welfare instead of warfare "service," preserving our given Peace
of Christ, in spirit and also in body, and proving our love of neighbor,
"enemy" or "ally," by our works of love, spiritual and corporal.  So
that by this Catholic Peacemakers Action, all people may recognize Christ's
disciples, and in the words of Saint Francis, the Patron of Catholic Action,
"all may be provoked to peace (instead of war), to meekness (instead of
violence), and to concord (instead of discord).  For to this we are called,
that we care for the injured, bind up the broken, and recall the erring.
Indeed there are many who now seem to be members of Satan who at length
will be members of Christ."  And at last, the Gospel of "Peace on earth
among people of goodwill" (sic) then will be proclaimed and exemplified
by them also, in a crusade of Catholic Peacemakers Action for the Peace
of Christ, and the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth.

    Okay, you have just been elected President of an economically powerful
    country and most of your citizenry plays by the rules.  Your history
    shows you have been involved in two major conflicts over the last 80
    years as well as 5 or 6 significant skirmishes that took quite a few
    lives.  Enough is enough!
    
    As you start slowly dismantling some of these government agencies that
    have done not so good things in the past...nevertheless kept tabs on
    the world, you are faced with an awesome dilemna.  One of your Federal
    Buildings has just been blown up and terrorism ensues throughout the
    country..(The Boston subways were evacuated yet today).  Just for
    argument sake, you find out that the bombings were done under the
    training and guidance of Saddam Hussein.  How do you as
    a Christian Pacifist handle the situation?
    
    I don't ask this with tongue in cheek.  I realize there aren't any easy
    answers and I'm not expecting any easy ones here.  I truly want to
    learn how one would handle this in todays world.  King David was a man
    after Gods own heart...would you be like him?
    
    God bless,
    
    -Jack

    I personally don't find David very exceptional.  I find Jesus
    of Nazareth exceptional.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Right....but David was King of Israel and had to make human decisions.
    And we see some of his decisions.  
    
    Now...about that president question.....
    
    
    

>    Right....but David was King of Israel and had to make human decisions.
>    And we see some of his decisions.  
    
>    Now...about that president question.....
    
Our president, though not a king, makes decisions no less human than those
of David.

Shalom,
Richard

PS  I'm afraid I'd never be elected President of the United States.  Perhaps
another Christian pacifist will respond.

Dear Jack (.240),

	Allow me to say this much.  I do not believe the militaristic,
cowardly perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing should be allowed
to escape prosecution, in case this is a factor behind your hypothetical
scenario.

Shalom,
Richard

    Yes...very much so.  After reading an article in the magazine you sent
    me (to which I am thankful), I sat there trying to ponder something.
    
    Just looked in my drawer and realized I left it at home.  There was an 
    article written by an inmate who was in for armed robbery.  I read it a
    few weeks ago but what he was writing about was the disparity of blacks
    vs. whites in prison...and how the treatment of same is absolutely
    horrendous...the racism, etc.  It is clear to me that there can be
    inequities in prison...and that prisons are not the country clubs
    Americans may think they are.  Yet at the same time they don't seem to
    be a deterrent either.  
    
    But what I really want to focus on is retribution.  Christian Pacifism,
    in its purest form seems to rely on faith that God will repay...as I
    would expect to be the case in the bombings.  This is an issue that the
    writer of this article seemed to avoid...the fact that although there
    are a proportionately high number of minorities in prison, he seems to
    avoid the fact that they actually did something to get in prison...and
    that justice and paying a debt to society take a back seat to the
    minority issue.  
    
    In a country such as the US...governed by laws and rights, I am trying
    to understand if Christian Pacifism can actually work in such a
    society.  Some might say that Pacifism might be irresponsible and as
    the Bible alludes to at times, falling asleep on the watch.  I simply
    wonder how...
    
   - A Christian Pacifist would implement a plan to deter future bombings.
    
   - A Christian Pacifist would mete out justice in a way to deter future
    bombings.  This point is prejudiced on the article I read and referred
    to above.
    
    -Jack

re Note 369.245 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     But what I really want to focus on is retribution.  Christian Pacifism,
>     in its purest form seems to rely on faith that God will repay...as I
>     would expect to be the case in the bombings.  

        I'm not a pacifist, so perhaps I don't know this well enough,
        but I could imagine that one of the great motivators of
        pacifism for Christians is that, 99.9999% of the time, God
        does *not* repay evil for evil -- at least not immediately,
        and generally not in this life.

        To believe in an all-knowing and all-powerful God who is
        directly involved in human affairs is to believe that almost
        always swift retribution is *not* appropriate, or at least 
        that God chooses *not* to deliver such punishment.


>    - A Christian Pacifist would implement a plan to deter future bombings.
>     
>    - A Christian Pacifist would mete out justice in a way to deter future
>     bombings.  This point is prejudiced on the article I read and referred
>     to above.
  
        (What does this have to do with pacifism, per se?  Aren't you
        confusing pacifists with anarchists?  Pacifists aren't, in
        general, anti-police or anti-law-enforcement.  Pacifism
        generally refers to relations between nations.  Unless this
        bombing is an act of a hostile government, I don't see where
        the issue of pacifism comes in.)

        Whether the bombers were Islamic fundamentalists, Christian
        cultists, or anti-Government survivalists, I have am certain
        that punishing the perpetrators themselves would have no
        deterrent effect (regardless of the punishment). Did
        martyrdom have any "deterrent effect" on the spread of
        Christianity?

        Bob

    Good point...I wanted to be sure I understood the theme of the magazine
    sent to me.  Viz a vee....if the writer ignores justice, is this part
    of the pacifist belief!
    
    -Jack

	Jack,

	I'm not a pacifist but as a Jehovah's Witness would
	refuse military service. Regarding your hypothetical
	question, Jesus showed that his followers would "be 
	no part of the world" John 17:16 we interpret this
	that it would be wrong to take up political office.
	However, Romans 13 shows that the governments are
	permitted to rule by God and their laws are there
	to be adhered to if they don't violate God's law.
	Verse 4, is interesting with your question in mind,
	the KJV reads "For he is the minister of God to thee 
	for Good. But if thou do that if evil, be afraid; for 
	he beareth the sword not in vain: for he is the minister 
	of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
	evil." If the government failed to mete out justice
	then it would be answerable to God for it's action.
	In view of the car bombing it should be life for life.

	So what I am saying is that I would not take up office
	because of a neutral stance on worldly politics. But
	it is right that the ruling power should mete out proper
	justice.


	Phil.

re Note 369.245 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     But what I really want to focus on is retribution.  Christian Pacifism,
>     in its purest form seems to rely on faith that God will repay...as I
>     would expect to be the case in the bombings.  

Such a notion of God is childish (and contrary to the teachings and example
of the Incarnate One).

When American children are injured and killed it's called evil.
When Iraqi children were injured and killed it's called "collateral damage."

One thing is certain.  The perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing were
not Christian pacifists (though some of them might actually claim to be
Christian).

In addition to writings the caliber of Daniel and Phil Berrigan, Coleman
McCarthy, and others, the magazine I sent you (The Other Side) frequently
features provocative and discomforting articles.  I had hoped you would
find the publication thought-provoking.  I guess you did.

Richard

Note 369.240

>    Just for
>    argument sake, you find out that the bombings were done under the
>    training and guidance of Saddam Hussein.

So...if it turns out that the Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by
home-grown right-wingers, what would you have us do for retribution?
Bomb Boise or Butte?  Obliterate Orange County?  Lynch Limbaugh?

I think not.

Shalom,
Richard

    	re .-1
    
    	Disbanding the various citizen "militias" might be a start.

    Well, that would be a start if in fact the militias were
    involved...which apparently they are not.  This would allign with the
    charter of the military which is to protect the United States from all
    enemies...both foreign and domestic.  I was curious though how a
    Christian Pacifist would handle such a matter.
    
    Phil, I find your position interesting on the political
    machine...considering it is usually the leader of a country to set some
    sort of spiritual tone throughout the nation.  If you look at ancient
    Israel, those kings who ruled would bring Israel to repentence.  Guys
    like Asa, Hezekiah, Jehosaphat...while guys like Manassah, Jeroboam,
    and Ahab brought Israel and Judah into the height of apostacy.  Had
    Israel and Judah contained kings who feared the Lord throughout,
    perhaps there would have been no Babylon or Rome.  Therefore I would
    have to dispute your assertion that those who love Jehovah are to
    abstain from the political system.
    
    -Jack

re .252

Jack,

When Jesus said that his disciples were to be no part
of the world, what was he referring to?.

Phil.

 ZZ   When Jesus said that his disciples were to be no part
 ZZ   of the world, what was he referring to?.
    
    Good question.  Jesus told us we are to be in the world but not of the
    world.  I recently finished a quote for a large defense contractor for
    the F16 project.  These jets will be sold to foreign countries.  So,
    I put together a configuration and your organization verified it. 
    Hence you and I have contributed to the world system.
    
    What I believe Jesus is saying is that we are to be like Moses...that
    is, we are not to partake of the pleasures of sin...but we are to be
    regenerated and dead to our old selves.  We are to be a new creation in
    Christ.  The passage you refer to says nothing about the occupation or
    ministry we take part in.  Nehemiah was the Kings cup bearer and Cyrus
    put his very life in the hands of Nehemiah.  There are many examples 
    in the Old Testament of Godly men participating in the service of
    politics.
    
    -Jack

.251 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	Disbanding the various citizen "militias" might be a start.

As abhorrent as they may be, until they cross the line (legally) they have a
right in this country to exist.
-------------------------------
.252 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Well, that would be a start if in fact the militias were
    involved...which apparently they are not.

It doesn't matter. If a particular militia were involved, then the appropriate
steps should be taken against THEM. You can't paint all such groups with the
same brush.

Steve

re Note 369.255 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF:

>     	Disbanding the various citizen "militias" might be a start.
> 
> As abhorrent as they may be, until they cross the line (legally) they have a
> right in this country to exist.

        I agree with you Steve.

        This poses the dilemma:  the natural thing for a society to
        do is to try to prevent "crossing the line" (i.e., try to
        prevent more OKC blasts).  The natural thing for society to
        do is to try to identify, beforehand, which organizations are
        likely to eventually cross the line -- and prevent them.

        As people are so fond of pointing out (because it's true),
        governments make mistakes, and government officials are
        tempted to abuse their powers.  A government that has the
        authority to identify potential lawbreakers, and stop them
        before they break the law, or a government that has the
        authority to watch everybody so closely that it can step in
        and stop them before they do something terrible, is capable
        of tremendous repression of anything and anybody they don't
        like.

        Either way, we lose.  Perhaps a certain level of terrorism
        must be inevitable in a free society.

        Bob

Means and ends are inextricably related, as the seed is to the tree.

The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City was rooted as much
in a mentality of militarism as the bombimg of Baghdad.

Richard

ZZ    It doesn't matter. If a particular militia were involved, then the
ZZ    appropriate
ZZ    steps should be taken against THEM. You can't paint all such groups
ZZ    with the same brush.
    
    Steve:
    
    What is your opinion of George Washington and his band of militaristic
    rebels?
    
    -Jack

.258 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

Jack, 

I don't understand your point. 

I was making the point that using this as an excuse to broaden the powers of the
police (which is being done) is a dangerous reaction. Taking pre-active action,
such as declaring such groups illegal before they do anything illegal is a
dangerous reaction. Infiltrating a group and moving upon conspiracy to commit a
crime is a reasonable, although dangerous, possibility.

What were you getting at?

Steve

    I'm sorry Steve...I agree with what you stated.  It looked like you
    were saying that if one militia takes part in a terrorist attack, then
    action should be taken against all of them!
    
    Okay Glen...fire away, I know you're going to get on my case for this.
    
    Glen is a little annoyed at me in another conference along with a band
    of other people.  
    
    -Jack

re .254

 ZZ   When Jesus said that his disciples were to be no part
 ZZ   of the world, what was he referring to?.
    
>    Good question.  Jesus told us we are to be in the world but not of the
>    world.  I recently finished a quote for a large defense contractor for
>    the F16 project.  These jets will be sold to foreign countries.  So,
>    I put together a configuration and your organization verified it. 
>    Hence you and I have contributed to the world system.

Guilt by association, eh?. My conscience is clean on this one. I have 
weighed this up before, knowing that Digital do sell products that are 
used by the military. The company as a whole, mainly deals with comercial 
companies. If asked to do a project with the military I would decline. 

The taxes we pay, are used to buy arms by the government. However, 
governments are due the tax for they give many good services such
as the fire, police and ambulance service. At the end of the day
they will be judged on how they use these taxes, the evidence is
they have used them make a stock pile of arms rather than supply
the things that will help their subjects or their fellow man.


>    What I believe Jesus is saying is that we are to be like Moses...that
>    is, we are not to partake of the pleasures of sin...but we are to be
>    regenerated and dead to our old selves.We are to be a new creation in
>    Christ.  The passage you refer to says nothing about the occupation or
>    ministry we take part in.  Nehemiah was the Kings cup bearer and Cyrus
>    put his very life in the hands of Nehemiah.  There are many examples 
>    in the Old Testament of Godly men participating in the service of
>    politics.

Moses was the mediator of the Law Covenant and through God's power
lead the Israelites from bondage to the Egyptians. The Israelites
were freed from a political power to come under a Theocracy.

Isaiah 11:12 KJV reads "And I shall set up an ensign for the nations,
and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed
of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant, will be a signal or "ensign"
who will gather persons of all nations into a new holy nation. 

Isaiah 9:7a KJV reads "Of the increase of his government and peace will
be no end". The government would be on his shoulders (verse 6). Those
who want to come under this government or kingdom (Matthew 6:10) would
pledge allegiance to it rather than this political system. Jesus said
to put kingdom interests first above all else. Trying to change this
world or the political scene will be in vain when we see that God intends
to replace it anyway with his kingdom (Daniel 2:44).  

As in the case of God using Moses to be lead the Isrealites from the 
oppression of one political system, so too God is using Jesus to lead 
others from bondage into a peaceful new system.

Must go

Phil.  
 

    That's fine Phil..but you have still yet to prove that regenerated
    believers cannot run for politics.  Politics is supposed to be a
    trusted office where a person is a steward of the welfare of its
    constituency.  Same can be said for a doctor or a lawyer.
    
    There are many examples in the Bible of Godly leadership.  The
    centurion dealing with Jesus comes to mind.  He was in charge of many
    and yet trusted his loved one would be healed just by the spoken word. 
    There is no evidence that he stopped being a centurion.
    
    -Jack

    .262
    
    I am not a JW (Jehovah's Witness).  I am familiar with the JW stance
    concerning holding public office.  It's not that difficult to find out
    about.  I personally do not agree with the stance.
    
    I will say this much.  The centurion was not a follower of Christ.
    True, Jesus was amazed at the centurion's faith and the centurion's
    request was granted.  The grace of God is not poured out on Christians
    exclusively (though doubtlessly many would like to see it thus).  Jesus
    said so himself.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Didn't Jesus say something like, "No greater faith have I seen in all
    Israel than the faith of this man."?  The Centurion is only briefly
    mentioned but my instinct tells me he probably became a follower of
    Jesus Christ...based on his faith and the healing of his son (or
    daughter).  Centurions are appointed through rank, not voted in...but I
    was trying to make the point that Christian leaders do have a place and
    their ministry is where God puts them...be it politics or not.
    
    Re: Guilt by Association, Phil...I thought about this last night.  If
    Digital needed your help on a project dealing with the defense
    industry, and you refused to assist, I believe you would not be
    rendering to Caeser what is Caesers.  
    
    -Jack

re .264

Jack,

Yes one needs to render to Caeser what is Caesars only
as far as rendering to God what is God's. It is wrong
to kill from God's standpoint. Weapons of war today
kill many innocent victims, a 1992 report by UNICEF
'The state of World's children' stated that "civilians
- mostly women and children make up 80% of casualties
of war". With this in mind my own conscience says it
is wrong to play a part in the manufacture of weapons
that could result in the loss of many young innocent 
lives.

Taking up political office was something Jesus himself
declined, for example John 6:15 NWT "Therefore Jesus,
knowing they were about to come and sieze him to make
him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone."
He could have reasoned that he could have made more
of an influence from political office and yet he declined
why? For an answer compare Matthew 4:8-10 and 1 John 5:19.

Comments of historians are interesting on how the First
Century Christians interpretted Jesus' command to be
no part of the world.

"Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded
 with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world...
 Christians refused to share certain duties as Roman
 citizens... They would not hold political office." 
 On the Road to Civilisation, A World History (Philadelphia
 Chicago, etc.; 1937) Albert K. Heckel and James G. Sigman,
 pp237,238.

"Zealous Christians did not serve in the armed forces or
 accept political offices." World History, The Story of Man's
 Achievements (River Forest, Ill.; 1962) Habberton, Roth &
 Spears, p117.

"While among Romans it was considered the highest honor to
 possess the privileges of Roman citizenship, the Christians
 anounced they were citizens of heaven. They shrank from
 public office and military service." 'Persecution of the
 Christians in Gaul, AD 177' by F.P.G. Guizot, former prime
 minister of France, Vol III of The Great Events by Famous
 Historians (New York; 1905), Rossiter Johnson, ed., p.246

"The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world
 around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom
 to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent
 want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset
 to be a noticeable feature in Christianity." Christianity
 and the Roman government (London; 1925), E.G. Hardy, 
 Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, p 39.

"The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as 
 a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able
 to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must
 be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring
 to instil more and more holy feeling into the citizens
 of the state." The History of the Christian Religion and
 Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York 1848)
 Dr. Augustus Neander, translated from the German by 
 H.J. Rose, p168.


 Jack, as you mention the Bible is not clear as to whether
 the Centurion left his position in the army. Things to
 keep in mind though are that, the way wasn't opened for
 gentiles until Cornelius (another Centurion) became a
 disciple in 37 CE. Also a Centurion would have been 
 required to burn incense to Caesar who was regarded as a 
 god. He could not do this and yet be a Christian, 
 1 Corinthians 10:14 NWT "Flee from idolatry." 

 Phil.
 

 Historian quotes are compiled in a book "Make Sure of
 All Things Hold Fast To What Is Fine" pp 353,354.

  

ZZ   for example John 6:15 NWT "Therefore Jesus,
ZZ  knowing they were about to come and sieze him to make
ZZ  him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone."
    
    I cannot dispute what you referenced regarding the history of the Roman 
    Empire.  It may be safe to say however that Christians of that time
    would have had to rever Caeser as their god.  This would certainly stop
    me from serving as well.  I would like to comment on the passage above. 
    Remember that the Israelites had an agenda for Jesus...that being to
    overthrow the government.  Jesus unwillingness to fill a role of
    political office wasn't even a consideration for him...because it
    wasn't part of his mission.  His mission was to redeem sinful man.  
    
    This doesn't prclude us from having a ministry within an office.  We
    are not required to look upon our president in the same light as
    Caeser.
    
    -Jack

    .264
    
    Jack,
    
    	There is no evidence in the gospel that the centurion ever became a
    Christian, a follower of Christ.
    
    	The discussion of what is God's and what is not is discussed
    elsewhere.  And to clue you in a little, there's an important reason
    Jesus asked for a silver coin and then asked whose image appeared on it.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes...and I'm applying that principle here.  Are we to render to our 
    earthly masters what is theres?
    
    -Jack

    No..no..no, Jack.
    
    Why would the coin have been unacceptable for use in the Temple?
    
    What was it doing in the purse of a faithful Jew in the first
    place?
    
    Richard
    

    My understanding is that the Jews of that time carried a separate purse
    to carry the Roman coin as it was required to pay the tax...and a tax
    collector could accost any citizen and say pay up at his very whim. 
    The Jews found it detestable to have to pay to the government of Rome
    and kept their Roman money separate from their own money.  From what
    I've heard, the inscription on the Roman coin said something like,
    "Hail Ceaser, Our God and Savior".  It would be an act of idolatry to
    even bring the coin into the temple.  
    
    So if I'm not understanding this, then why Did Jesus say to render to
    Ceaser what is Ceasers?
    
    -Jack

re 369.266

Jack,

1 Peter 2:21 NWT "In fact, to this [course] YOU were 
called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving 
YOU a model for YOU to follow his foot steps closely."

Now you admit that politics wasn't part of Jesus'
mission, and therefore it wouldn't be part of a
Christians calling for Jesus set the pattern to follow.
Also compare 2 Cor 5:20, Phil 3:20.

A Christians emphasis would be on the great commission,
that Jesus gave (Matthew 28:18-20). 

;This doesn't prclude us from having a ministry within an office.  We
;are not required to look upon our president in the same light as
;Caeser.

But what about national emblems or flags. We have the example
of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3 which should
make it clear that it is wrong to render homage to a state emblem.
One might say flag cermonies are not like that. However it is
interesting to note how some view this....

"[Historian] Carlton Hayes pointed out long ago that the ritual
of flag-worship and oath-taking in an American school is a
religious observance. Little boys and girls in school from 
which religion in the old sense is barred, solemnly rising each
morning and reciting together the 'American's Creed' are performing 
a religious excercise as truly as if they began the day with 
'I believe in God the Father Almighty' or asserted that 'There
is no God but God.' And that these daily rituals are religious
has been at last affirmed by the Supreme Court in a series of
cases." The American Character (New York; 1956) Denis W. Brogan,
pp163,164

"The flag like the cross, is sacred.... The rules and regulations
relative to human attitude toward national standards use strong
expressive words, as, 'Service to the Flag,' ... 'Reverence for
the Flag,' 'Devotion to the Flag.'" The Enclopedia Americana
(New York; 1942), Vol. XI, p316.

"Early flags were almost purely of a religious character ... The
national banner of England for centuries-the red cross of Saint
George- was a religious one; in fact the aid of religion seems
to have sought to give sanctity to national flags, and the origin
of many can be traced a sacred banner." The Encyclopedia Brittanica
(Chicago 1946) Vol 9, p 343.

"The story of the origin of our National flag parrallels the story
of the origin of our country. As our country received its birthright
from peoples of many lands who were gathered on these shores to found 
a new nation, so did the pattern of Stars and Stripes rise from several
origins back in the mists of antiquity to become enblazened on the 
standards of our infant Republic. 

"The Star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man 
has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays
of light emanating from the sun. Both themes have long been represented
on the standards of nations, from the banners of the astral worshippers
of ancient Egypt and Babylon to the 12-starred flag of the Spanish 
Conquistadors under Cortez. Continuing in favor, they spread to the 
striped standards of Holland and the West India Company in the 17th
century and to the present patterns of stars and stripes on the flags
of several nations of Europe, Asia and the Americas." Our Flag
(Washington, DC; 1962) published by the office of Armed Forces Information
and Education, Department of Defense, p1.

"In a public ceremony presided over by the vice president of the [Military
Supreme] Court, on the 19th November, honors were shown to the Brazilian
flag.... After the flag was hoisted, Minister General of the Army Tristao
de Alencar Araripe expressed himself concerning the commeration in this
manner: ... flags have become a divinity of patriotic religion which
imposes worship.... The flag is venerated and worshiped, every moment
of one's life, with profound, pure and almost almost inborn sentiments
of love ... The flag is venerated and worshiped, just as the Fatherland
is worshiped.... The Flag is venerated just as the Fatherland is venerated,
giving to it all of oneself and placing above one's own self even the 
sacrifice of one's life.... Worship, veneration, sacrifice, mark well the
divine essence of this symbol.... It is fitting that on this day consecrated
to the unforgettable divinity- the national flag- emphasis be given to
worship." Diario de Justica, Febrauary 16, 1956, p1906. Federal Capital
Brazil.

The principal for staying neutral is that one cannot slave for two masters.
"No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and
love the other, or he will stick to one and despise the other. You cannot
slave for God and for Riches." Matthew 6:24 NWT

Jesus' quote about rendering to Caesar is in Mark 12:17a NWT "Jesus then
said 'Pay back Caeser's things to Caeser, but God's things to God.'"

Worship, veneration or homage should be reserved solely for God. Paying
back Caeser's things to Caeser is not absolute but relative to ones
service to God.

Phil.  

Quotes are compiled in a book "Make Sure of All Things Hold Fast To 
What Is Fine" pp 355,356.

.272 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"

"[Historian] Carlton Hayes pointed out long ago that the ritual
of flag-worship and oath-taking in an American school is a
religious observance. Little boys and girls in school from 
which religion in the old sense is barred, solemnly rising each
morning and reciting together the 'American's Creed' are performing 
a religious excercise as truly as if they began the day with 
'I believe in God the Father Almighty' or asserted that 'There
is no God but God.'

	I get real tired of this assertion (and I know that this is not         
        necessarily Phil's view). If you get down to the third definition you
	might make a case that it is observed 'like a religion', but for 
	something to be religious in the sense we use here it must include a
	belief in an omnipotent deity. This does not.

	The flag is a symbol of patriotism, not religion. Now, as to whether
	you can be a patriot and faithful to God, I'll leave the argument to
	you. For another view, George Bush asserted that in his opinion an
	atheist should be considered 'neither a patriot or a citizen'.

	Steve

	I have been persuaded offline to share a bit of good news with you
concerning myself.

	I have been granted the high and holy honor of being selected to
receive the Peacemaker Award from the Rocky Mountain Conference (a region
in the U.S.) of the United Methodist Church.

	I, an unworthy servant, am humbled.

Shalom,
Richard

	Congradulations Richard!!!!!!!!

.274, congratulations richard!


andreas.

    ZZZ        Congradulations Richard!!!!!!!!
    
    Ya spelt it incorrectly and should be humbled!!!
    
    Richard, warmest congratulations on this award!
    
    -Jack

    GOOD FOR YOU RICHARD!!!


    justme....jacqui


    p.s.  Do you know or heard a Rev. Woodie White???

Note 369.278

>    p.s.  Do you know or heard a Rev. Woodie White???

It rings a bell, but I don't know why.  (Might I be thinking of Walter Wink?)

I've been thinking a lot about accepting this award.  I'll have to confess,
I'm having some doubts.

Shalom,
Richard

    Woodie the bartender is now a Rev.?

    The Rev Woodie White used to be the Executive Director of
    the Council on Race & Religion.  I met him when I went to
    MYF camp at Aldersgate in RI years & years ago.  He was 
    a student minister and our MYF group persuaded our church
    in New Bedford, MA to bring him in as a Student Minister
    for his internship.  What one needs to know is that this
    was in the late '50s and the soon-to-be Rev White was 
    black!  I think he now has his own congregation in the
    middle US of A now.  We also had a Rabbi from New York
    as a counselor at that camp.  Our group had him come and
    preach to our congregation later and he remembered me as
    the one always asking questions.  

    justme.,...jacqui


    

Note 369.281

>    The Rev Woodie White used to be the Executive Director of
>    the Council on Race & Religion.

I regret I've not had the pleasure.

Shalom,
Richard

The following are excerpts from an editorial piece by Coleman McCarthy,
whose writings appear regularly in the Washington Post:

   Another indisputable fact also exists in the post-Hiroshima world: The
least honored and most forgotten Americans during World War II are the
courageous people of conscience who refused to obey the 1940 Selective
Service Act.  These war resisters declined to embrace the prevailing
sentiment that this was 'the good war,' though goodness would take the
predictable form of carpet-bombing such civilian sites as Dresden,
Hamburg and Tokyo, and then the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki...

   In the early 1040s, federal prosecutors were unrestrained in calling
for the maximum five-year sentences for the widely reviled resisters.  If
any war could be labeled a "just war," so the patriotic line went, this
was it.  In "Jailed for Peace: the History of American Draft Law Violators
1659-1985" Stephen Kohn, a Washington lawyer, correctly analyzed that
although war resisters were opposed to the militarism of Germany and
Japan, they rejected the view that violence ends violence.

   "For the resisters," Kohn writes,"the 'just' wars of the past had failed
to achieve true social justice.  The Civil War did not end racism, segregation,
or the racial caste system.  World War I did not succeed in 'ending all
wars'...World War II resisters were convinced that war could not achieve
peaceful world conditions.  For them violence had failed as a method of
solving world tensions."

   They were right.  After World War II,...nations began planning for World
War III.

   A national debt -- a large and lasting one -- is owed the imprisoned heroes
of the early 1940s who refused to join the slaughtering.  Germany and Japan
had their resisters, too, including Franz Jaggerstatter, the Austrian peasant
beheaded by the Nazis August 9, 1943.

   That the debt to conscientious objectors has yet to be paid -- or much
acknowledged that it exists -- is traceable to the persistent misunderstanding
that pacifism is passivity and nonviolence is appeasement.  Neither is true,
as even a modest familiarity of the vast literature and history of nonviolence
would confirm...

   The bravery, discipline, sacrifice and obedience displayed by many World
War II combatants -- on all sides -- were the traits also of conscientious
objectors.  Their non-compliance was at least the equal of -- and may have
surpassed the tests required by militaries.

    Richard:
    
    See this is the hard thing I'm following with the Pacifism movement.  I
    have no problem with people following their own convictions; but
    remember that by dodging the draft, you are in essence putting somebody
    in the position you were supposed to have filled.  So if that person
    dies, he died in your place.  I can't reconcile this with peace at all.
    I see this as a man of peace who can't see the forest through the
    trees...or having the inability to see the costly ramifications of
    their decision.  
    
    I would like you or anybody else to comment on Bosnia.  We see the
    United Nations attempting to be a peacekeeping force.  In actuality,
    they are doing a very good job at promoting gun control...which we know
    has really promoted equity and peace for the Bosnian people.  
    
    So here's my question.  If you pass by a house  and you hear what
    sounds like an assailant striking a woman with a child crying in the
    background, then the courageous thing to do is to go in there and 
    try to save the life of the woman and the child.  What would the
    differentiation be between somebody who doesn't do this and a pacifist?
    
    Sincerely asking, thank you for your detailed reply!
    
    -Jack

Jack,

To say that one man's conscientious objection is either draft dodging
or causes another to take his place is incorrect.

First, during the draft, the only way to receive a conscientious
objection was to both qualify and submit to the draft process. You had to
pass your physical, like everyone else. You then had to qualify for the
rating, I-O, and then when drafted, you received through the system an
assignment. Often, this assignment was to be a medic in a war zone,
hardly anything you could characterizing as a dodge.

The structure of the SSS required you to have a I-something status to be
drafted. Student deferral was a II-S which meant you couldn't get the
C.O. without forfeiting the higher (safer) status.

The decision of who goes and who doesn't was a personal matter. Just like
a lot of other things, it was the choice of each who was called. No one
had a place, like a seat on the bus. The C.O. is no more responsible for
any other person's choice than those that took familiy, school and job
deferments, or any citizen who allowed the system to exist.

If you look at the words of Christ, it is very straightforward to
conclude that pacifism was his teachings. Even when provoked, Christ
showed an obvious constraint in his reactions. His ultimate statement was
dying on the cross, a complete sacrifice.

TTom

    Ttom:
    
    Thanks for explaining this.  I am still interested to know however,
    your explanation of the Bosnia debacle and the analogy I used of the
    battered woman.  
    
    -Jack

Jack,

I think it's a case of "Mistaken Toms". 'Tweren't I who wrote anything
about Bosnia.

TTom

.284 Jeff,

  That 369.283 fails to appeal to you serves to verify to me that it is
rooted in rightness.

Richard

re      <<< Note 369.285 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
    
>    I would like you or anybody else to comment on Bosnia. 
    
    Jack,
    
    There are Jehovah's Witnesses within Bosnia, these when possible are
    helping people to see that it is wrong to kill fellowman whatever
    their background. With this in mind, persons from all backgrounds
    come together to worship Jehovah in love and peace without predujice.
    In otherwords, if all Bosnian's were Jehovah's Witnesses then there
    wouldn't be a war or a need for a peace keeping force.
    
    I know it's hard for you to understand, but Bible prophecy teaches
    that at some time some persons would learn war no more. The time is now,
    and Witnesses are following this example in Bosnia as they are as a
    whole in all lands of the earth.
    
    "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of
    the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains,
    and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto
    it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to
    the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he 
    will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of
    shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And
    he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and
    they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
    pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
    shall they learn war anymore." Isaiah 2:2-4 KJV 
    
    During the "last days" Jesus prophecied that "And ye shall hear of wars
    and rumours of wars: see that ye not be troubled: for all these things
    must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise
    against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:" Matthew 24:6,7 KJV
    
    So linking these two prophecies, during the "last days" there will
    be wars on an unprecedented scale. However, the "LORD's house" or
    pure worship would be elevated and many persons in all nations
    would learn the ways of peace. They would show themselves teachable
    and learn the ways of truth or their God. That it is wrong to take
    the life of a fellowman, especially their brother be he from Serbian,
    Croat or Muslim origin.
    
    It is difficult for Jehovah's Witnesses to make the stand they do in
    Bosnia, because they are more than likely hated by all warring factions
    for the stance they take. But they are content in knowing that they
    are bringing glory to their Father, showing that his ways of peace
    do work even under the most difficult of situations. Also they can
    enjoy the fellowship which would be lost if they allowed predujice
    to come between the love they have for their brother though he might
    be a stranger.
    
    Phil.        
    
    

    Oops sorry, reentered my reply, hence .289 is missing.
    
    Phil.

    Phil:
    
    First of all, thank you for your response.  There is nothing in there
    that I have dispute with.  However (there always seems to be a
    however),
    
    - I clearly understand what you are saying and I understand the
    prophecies you brought up...and I believe these prophecies,
    particularly the one where we beat our swords into plowshares will
    come about in the future when Satan is bound.  Right now, the world is
    still under the influence of the Prince of the Power of the air.  
    This kind of peace will only come about when the whole world takes upon
    themselves the righteousness of Christ.  This will only happen when
    Jesus Christ returns...he HAS NOT returned yet but as scripture states,
    when he does return then EVERY eye shall behold Him.
    
    - Secondly, your reply was not in the context of my analogy.  You are
    in a fragmented country and as a neutral individual, you see
    atrocities.  Are you being a good pacifist to not help the person being
    attacked?  Does pacifism mean ignoring the plight of others by an
    enemy?  How do you reconcile the peace you mention in an evil world?
    
    -Jack

Jack .285,

	You have to realize I didn't enter 369.283 for your benefit.  I
didn't enter 369.283 for your criticism either, but this doen't mean it
surprises me.

	I hope to respond to at least some of your concerns at a later
time.

Shalom,
Richard

>.284 Jeff,

>  That 369.283 fails to appeal to you serves to verify to me that it is
>rooted in rightness.

>Richard

    That's an interesting approach to discerning truth, Richard.
    
    I find it ludicrous to compare the sacrifice of the resistor to the
    sacrifice of the dead soldier.  But this is quite in line with the
    ignorant distortions in modern (non)thinking.
    
    jeff

    .295
    
    Well, as I said....
    

    re .293
    
    Jack,
    
    I'm just about to go home and will be out of the office for 4 days.
    Quick answer, firstly it's wrong to kill fellow man even if Satan
    is ruler of the air. One cannot use this as an excuse, for Christ's
    follwers would be known by their fruit, whether 1900+ years ago or
    today. Second, I haven't time at the moment to go into "every eye
    will see him" . However, whichever scripture you are referring to
    may I draw your attention to how it describes Jesus' coming. Is it
    on the clouds?, if so what does this infer?. For example on a cloudy
    day the sun is hidden from view, but you know is has risen because
    of the influence it exerts. Jesus gave many signs which would be
    a composite sign of his presence. If he would be visible to naked eye
    then there wouldn't have been a need for so many signs for his
    followers to look out for. Additionally, Psalms 110:2 tells us that
    he would go subduing amongst the midst of his enemies. It would be a 
    time of woe for the earth (compare Revelation 12). But I admit that
    Matthew 24 does infer that sometime during the "last days" that there 
    will be a visible sign, that people will attribute to the "Son of Man".
    
    Regarding, your second remark. My comment was made solely on Bosnia
    and the taking up of arms. With the analogy that you use, mercy would
    call for stepping in and trying to help someone being attacked. It
    doesn't mean one should copy the actions of the attacker and be
    molded into his way of thinking, rather try to keep the mind of christ.
    
> How do you reconcile the peace you mention in an evil world?
    
    But Jack, aren't Christians to be no part of the world. This is what
    Jesus prayed for. The ways of the world aren't for Christians, are
    they?. Peter admonished "be diligent that ye may found by him in peace,
    without spot, and blameless." 2 Peter 3:14 KJV The question we all have 
    to ask ourselves is, when Jesus comes to execute judgment how will he
    find me? in peace with fellowman, spotless, blameless?. A willingness
    to be peaceable now, shows that one wants to live peaceably in a new
    world and there is no doubting that it will come.
    
    Phil.
           
     

re Note 369.285 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     remember that by dodging the draft, you are in essence putting somebody
>     in the position you were supposed to have filled.  

        To take an extreme example, somebody who refused to
        participate in the Nazi atrocities is guilty of putting
        somebody else in the position of committing them, and thus
        simply had somebody else commit atrocities in their place?

        Bob

re Note 369.295 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     I find it ludicrous to compare the sacrifice of the resistor to the
>     sacrifice of the dead soldier.  But this is quite in line with the
>     ignorant distortions in modern (non)thinking.
  
        Why ludicrous?  Why is this ignorant?  

        Isn't it much more ignorant to insist that the populace step
        in time to the drum-beat of militarism -- and then call that
        "thinking"?

        Why call those who acquiesced "thinking" while slandering
        those who took highly individual acts "non-thinking"?

        Bob

    .283, 299 -
    
    hear hear.
    
    In our totally warrior society, honoring peace and pacifists happens
    all too rarely.  (I live in Arlington, MA where monuments to who got
    shot dead or bayoneted where in the revolution, are everywhere.) It's good 
    to hear the voice of reason.  Thanks for speaking up!
    
    As for "thinking", it may be worth noting that if we were all
    pacifists, there would be no more war.  (Of course, some people might
    have a problem with that.)
    
    Dorian                

    Dorian:
    
    Nobody wants war...war is ugly and as I said, I agree with the
    principles Jesus stated in His sermon on the mount.
    
    My question is still unanswered and wasn't addressed adequately by
    Phil.  Does Pacifism mean ignoring the cries of an abducted country,
    i.e. Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.  In other words, if you pass a house where a
    woman is being accosted, and you go in and whack the perpetrator over
    the head with a baseball bat, then what differentiates you from a
    soldier?
    
    -Jack

>     I find it ludicrous to compare the sacrifice of the resistor to the
>     sacrifice of the dead soldier.  But this is quite in line with the
>     ignorant distortions in modern (non)thinking.
  
>>        Why ludicrous?  Why is this ignorant?  

    
      Because the resistor sacrifices nothing compared to the sacrifice of
    the life of a soldier.  But you have to value life above ideas to 
    appreciate the supreme loss of a husband, brother, father, son.
    
>        Isn't it much more ignorant to insist that the populace step
>        in time to the drum-beat of militarism -- and then call that
>        "thinking"?

    There is no cultural militarism in the U.S., never has been.  War is a
    fact of history and reality.  The U.S. has been largely reasonable in
    its choices to participate in wars.
    
>        Why call those who acquiesced "thinking" while slandering
>        those who took highly individual acts "non-thinking"?

>        Bob
    
    
    	Up until Vietnam, men were eager to fight for their country and
    did not generally acquiesce.  Highly individual acts are not the
    measure of rightness nor should they be automatically exalted to such
    status.  Pacifists might well be motivated by cowardice rather than
    morality.  In any case, the man who risks (and loses) his life in
    battle should be much more admired, no matter how unjust a war, than
    he who doesn't, for whatever reason.
    
    jeff

re Note 369.302 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     In any case, the man who risks (and loses) his life in
>     battle should be much more admired, no matter how unjust a war, than
>     he who doesn't, for whatever reason.
  
        You make such blanket statements!  It is hard to take you
        seriously at times.

        (And you say that there's no cult of militarism!)

        Are you really saying that the Nazi soldier who died in
        battle was more to be admired than Bonhoffer? (Bonhoffer
        died, it was true, but not in battle.)

        Bob

Note 369.302

>      Because the resistor sacrifices nothing compared to the sacrifice of
>    the life of a soldier.  But you have to value life above ideas to 
>    appreciate the supreme loss of a husband, brother, father, son.

This is a falsehood, Jeff.  Many war resisters faced execution in taking
a stand.  Of course, in order to know this, one would have to look to a
side other than one's own.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    Is it wrong to participate in a war for the sake of another oppressed
    nation?
    
    Still wondering!
    
    -Jack

    I'd say you have to value life above ideas to *not want to bring about*
    the supreme loss of a husband, father, brother, son...
    
    D.

    D.
    
    How do you distinguish pacifism from indifference?
    
    This is about the fifth time I've addressed this issue and have yet to
    receive an answer.
    
    -Jack

Well for one, I consider pacifism to be anything but passive.

You can't just sit around and hope war, violence or the like doesn't come
calling for you.

Pacificism is a religious, spiritual and political persuasion.

Indifference is none of the above.

TTom

 ZZ   Pacificism is a religious, spiritual and political persuasion.
    
 ZZ   Indifference is none of the above.
    
    So from this, a pacifist may in fact have to defend his home...or
    somebody else who is being perpetrated upon.
    
    This is one of the fallacies of pacifism.  It seems to assume if you
    pick up a gun, then you are a militant.  If you pick up a gun, then you
    are not a pacifist.  
    
    Like the poor woman who is getting beaten up next door, there are
    simply times when you have to act.  
    
    So instead of brow beating me, I would appreciate it if any pacifists
    here justify the relinquishment of arms with social responsibility.
    
    -Jack
    

>        Are you really saying that the Nazi soldier who died in
>        battle was more to be admired than Bonhoffer? (Bonhoffer
>        died, it was true, but not in battle.)

>        Bob
    
    
    	

    You are walking through a jungle and you find a loaded pistol with five
    bullets in it.  You pick it up to turn in to the local authorities in
    North Vietnam.  As you continue to walk along, you hear a commotion and
    upon investigation, you see three North Vietnamese soldiers shooting
    American soldiers ...one at a time.  The outlook is totally bleak for
    the Americans.
    
    As a pacifist, how would you apply the basenote of this string to the
    situation.  In other words, how does your perception of the basenote in
    this string cause you to reply to such a precarious dillemna?
    
    -Jack  

    
    	Jack --
    
    	I don't know that these extreme scenarios are worthwhile.  I
    	see them in the same light as the abortion scenarios whereby
    	the mother is destitute, on medication, alcoholic, and has
    	AIDS.  The father has threatened to kill the mother if she
    	continues the pregnancy, and amnio shows a possibility of some
    	genetic defect.
    
    	Neither shows a common case.  Both are intended to debunk the
    	absolutivity through relativism.
    
    	I doubt that Jesus would have taken up arms had the Jews been
    	massacred by the Romans.  But at the same time we know that
    	members in his group carried arms, so we can assume that their
    	presence implied at least a tacit approval of them by Jesus.
    
    	I think that each position has its place in society.  In the
    	same way, both are subject to abuse.  I hate to see these
    	discussions argue against each others' positions as if the 
    	abuse or the extreme defines those positions.

    I appreciate that.  I am not trying to entrap anybody, annoy anybody,
    or simply be a pest.  I am being persistent here because quite frankly,
    I believe that my question is being conveniently avoided...simply
    because nobody can answer this question of pacifism without
    compromising the very principles they believe in.  
    
    Pacifism is based on relativism and in my mind cannot exist if somebody
    truly has a conviction of justice.  If everybody in the world was a
    pacifist, then there would be no wars...I don't deny this.  However,
    there are currently 22 conflicts of scope going on in the world today. 
    To my knowledge, there has never been a time when there were absolutely
    no conflicts since before the time of the garden incident.  
    
    The word "justice" is in the context of coming to the aid of those that
    are being perpetrated upon.  For example, if Richard and Bob were being
    threatened with their very existence and my ability meant possibly
    doing somebody in for the cause of their life, then I see this as
    righteous indignation and not militarism.
    
    -Jack

Note 369.285

Jack:

You say you believe Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  Do you believe Jesus'
words only when it's convenient?  Do you believe Jesus' words only when
there are no overriding circumstances?

Do you realize that virtually all of Christianity for the first 300 years
was pacifist?  Do you think primitive Christianity possessed an understanding
of Jesus' teachings and example somehow inferior to yours?  Do you believe
the first several generations of Christians were naive or relativitistic?

The problem in Bosnia, as I see it, is a spiritual one that is being
dealt with by military means.  After it's all over, will anything be
settled?  I say no.  But we shall see.

>    So here's my question.  If you pass by a house  and you hear what
>    sounds like an assailant striking a woman with a child crying in the
>    background, then the courageous thing to do is to go in there and 
>    try to save the life of the woman and the child.  What would the
>    differentiation be between somebody who doesn't do this and a pacifist?

Every pacifist I know would take some kind of action in your hypothetical
scenario and NOT simply ignor the situation, as you so rather smugly imply.
Incidentally, are you rushing in with a loaded firearm ready to shoot
the first person you believe to be the assailant?  I've got an feeling
you'll say no.

Pacifists are NOT passive.  That doesn't seem to get through to you.

Richard

The heroes who refused to kill during World War II were honored in a recent
50th anniversary ceremony.  Over 100,000 Austrian and German citizens
refused military service.  Twenty thousand of these were executed by Nazi
courts.  Still unsung are the many conscientious objectors from the Allied
nations, due largely I suspect to attitudes not unlike Jack's and Jeff's.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    I am somewhat amused that the hairs on your mane have gone up...simply
    by my desire to understand the other side.  Your right though Richard,
    it absolutely wasn't getting through to me...which is why I asked the
    question for the last two days eagerly awaiting somebody's respose as
    to how a pacifist handles a situation.
    
    You made the point that pacifists aren't passive.  That's fine but you
    still haven't offered a practical application to the Bosnian issue. 
    You are 100% correct that it is a spiritual problem which is being
    dealt with by militaristic needs.  However, as a pacifist, I would hold
    you to a similar conviction and standard as to how the problem could be
    resolved.  
    
    Patricia once stated something to the effect that responsibility isn't
    only confined to the family but that we are also responsible for the
    community.  To me, the community can also include a nation.
    
    So...practical application here.  If a nation is being put to death
    such as the case a few weeks ago of the presumed thousands of deaths of
    young men and old men, what would a pacifist community suggest as a 
    solution...assuming the United States was a completely pacifist county?
    
    Yes...a hard question which calls for a tough answer.
    
    -Jack

.313 Martin

    are being perpetrated upon.  For example, if Richard and Bob were being
    threatened with their very existence and my ability meant possibly
    doing somebody in for the cause of their life, then I see this as
    righteous indignation and not militarism.

Jack,

I believe that most of the parties in Bosnia (including the aggressors) are 
acting with what they believe is also righteous indignation. I have never 
heard of an aggressor (country) that did not believe, on some level, that 
they were doing the right thing. Much of Japan maintains to this day that 
their goal was to free the asiatic people from foreign control.

I am not a pacifist in the sense that we are, but the courage shown by true 
pacifists, those that would go to prison or die for their belief that we 
shouldn't kill each other, humble me with their courage.

Steve

    As I said, I believe in a man who stands by his convictions.
    
    So back to the practical application given to social responsibility.  
    Richard???

Jack,

The scenario that you described is the exact essence of a pacifist. When
threatened, they do not pick up guns or other weapons simply to defend
themselves.

A very good image of this is from the movie Ghandi. There were a couple
of scenes where the pacifists resisted and simply laid down.

So what is it that you're asking that has not been answered yet?

TTom

 ZZ   A very good image of this is from the movie Ghandi. There were a couple
 ZZ   of scenes where the pacifists resisted and simply laid down.
    
 ZZ   So what is it that you're asking that has not been answered yet?
    
    Well, I don't have anything wrong because I've only been asking
    questions.  First of all, I don't believe somebody can reeaaaally claim
    to be a pacifist until their feet have been put to the fire.  I
    remember Peters very words to Jesus..."We will never forsake you!"  The
    intention was honorable but Jesus was denied three times.
    
    To claim pacifism cannot really be determined until a point comes where
    the ultimate sacrifice had to be made.  If your children were in danger
    of life and limb, then it would be natural, and honorable in my
    opinion, to defend their lives at whatever cost is necessary!
    
    -Jack

If you can proclaim yourself a Christian than a pacifist can do the same.

Like your scenarios, we don't know what you'd do if faced with similar
situations.

What would it take for you, Jack, to be like Peter, and make the denial.
Put yourself in the scenarios you're posing and, like you said, would you
pay 'whatever cost is necessary'. Would you save your wife and family
if all you had to do was give up your faith?

No, none of us know what you'd do.

TTom

 ZZ   If you can proclaim yourself a Christian than a pacifist can do the
 ZZ   same.
    
    Oh, I agree with that!  In fact, to be a pacifist in a scenario that
    would put ones loved ones in jeopardy would take a tremendous amout of
    courage and faith.  This is why I say one can not really know if they
    are truly a pacifist until they are put in such a position.  Peter
    didn't really know how faithless he was...until he was actually put in
    that position.
    
    I am simply trying to determine whether or not defending one's country
    is ungodly.  I don't believe it is.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

>    I am simply trying to determine whether or not defending one's country
>    is ungodly.  I don't believe it is.

Well, first of all, the appropriate question: what is the Biblical basis
in this? Seriously, especially in new testament terms, how is this
supported. We all know that in the OT people fought and warred at the
drop of a hat *:).

As to the "one can not really know", I agree, and in your terms, you
don't really know how faithless you will be.

TTom

    I could only venture to guess...considering some of the faithless
    things I do in my everyday life!!!
    
    Jesus seems to teach alot to the church, but he never really touched
    much on patriotism and nationalism.  It seems he took little interest
    in it.  Nevertheless, we are stuck with the establishment, we are taxed
    by the establishment, and are required to follow the laws of the
    establishment.
    
    -Jack

>    I could only venture to guess...considering some of the faithless
>    things I do in my everyday life!!!

Amen, brother! Ye and me!

There is no contradiction between being a pacifist and following the laws
of the establishment. 

At a quick scan, very little mention is given to war in the NT outside of
Revelation.

TTom

>At a quick scan, very little mention is given to war in the NT outside of
>Revelation.

>TTom
    
    This is a common practice; to divide the OT and NT strictly and across
    the board, usually discarding the OT.  The full counsel of God is found 
    in both the OT and NT together.  God's revelation to humanity should be
    seen as the 66 books which we call the Bible.  Ignoring, discarding or
    otherwise devaluing either part for the other results in a disjointed
    message and an unwarranted dichotomy.
    
    jeff

Jack,

	You still don't get it.  Your "what if" scenarios are hardly original
or thought-provoking.  I judge that you really don't want to understand; that
it is enough for you to justify homocide, extinguishing the life of an
evil-doer, if in your mind the situation seems to call for it.

	Since the problem in Bosnia in a spiritual one, no matter how many
people are killed, raped, tortured and disfigured, a solution will not be
found through military means.  Oh, there may be periods of coerced peace
such as there was under "Pax Sovieta," to coin a phrase.  But in time...well,
we see what can happen.

	I don't pretend to know how to solve all the world's problems.  I do
know that war is not the solution.  Some are willing to hold out for a better
way.  Some are willing to face accusations of cowardice, incarceration, and
even death rather than participating in the deliberate destruction of human
lives through war.

Richard

Z    You still don't get it.  Your "what if" scenarios are hardly original
Z    or thought-provoking.  I judge that you really don't want to
Z    understand; that
Z    it is enough for you to justify homocide, extinguishing the life of an
Z    evil-doer, if in your mind the situation seems to call for it.
    
    Duh...right...I don't get it Richard...which is why I'm asking you. 
    Fine, don't get all bent out of shape.  I particularly find your
    accusation that I don't really want to understand particularly
    annoying.  
    
    Jewry was all but wiped out in Poland.  Many attribute this to the lack
    of action on the part of the Vatican and the United States.  This is
    speculative as far as the Vatican goes and I know it's been addressed. 
    Perhaps had we taken a stand for something earlier, there would be more
    Jews alive today in Eastern Europe.
    
    -Jack

    Perhaps, and perhaps not.
    
    Perhaps if there were enough war resisters under the Nazi regime the
    holocaust would have never taken place either.
    
    There were pockets of nonviolent resistance.  Some did some amazing
    things.  These typically get left out of the history books, which I'm
    sure you realize are typically written from a nationalistic point of
    view.
    
    Richard
    

    I realize that Richard.  I don't want you to think I believe that
    resistors don't have the best of intentions.  The only resistors I hold
    in utter contempt are resistors who sympathize with the "enemy" and bad
    mouth the United States in the process.  A certain actress and a
    certain politician come iommediately to mind.  It is those people I
    believe should have treason charges brought up against them.
    
    I believe you that there were resistors who did heroic acts.  It is
    very possible the war was shortened because of continuous prayer,
    fasting, and non violence.  When it comes to war, I usually look at
    things tactically...meaning, addressing the immediate crisis lest more
    children and men get shot and killed.  Could I do as Hezekiah and
    others did...spend the night in prayer only to wake up and see 200,000
    of the enemy slain by the hand of God?  I don't think I have that kind
    of faith unfortunately.
    
    -Jack

.330

>    Could I do as Hezekiah and
>    others did...spend the night in prayer only to wake up and see 200,000
>    of the enemy slain by the hand of God?

Have you heard the other side's account of this episode?  It does exist.
I read it the other day in Friedman's book "Who Wrote the Bible?" and
also heard an excerpt recently on the Time-Life TV series, "Lost Civilizations"
on Mesopotamia.

Richard

Look, Jack, I don't pretend to be paragon of faith and virtue either.  I
do have a slant on things that seems to be at variance from yours, more
on some issues than others.

Richard

Jeff,

Please refer me to the notes wherein I ignored, discarded or otherwise
devalued either part (OT or NT).

When one is looking for what Jesus said on a given matter, that
information is contained in the New Testament.

I'm usually with you on many issues but I fail to understand what brought
this on.

TTom

    Richard:
    
    The only thing I'm asking here is what's a pacifist in in the light of 
    social, cultural, and community responsibility, what virtues are there
    to being one.  I'm not trying to entrap anybody here.
    
    -Jack

I think you've used a very key word in any description or definition of a
pacifist: responsibility.

Pacifism, like religion, requires both the belief and the appropriate
actions. Personally, I see pacificism being rooted in the same bases as
what is would be called pro-life. Simply put, the commandment, "Thou
shalt not kill" is interpretted literally and completely.

As for its 'virtues', I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean, what
does the pacifist get out of being a pacifist or what the society gets
out of it?

TTom

    When I say virtues, I am using the wrong terminology.  What I am trying
    to determine is has a pacifist resolved in his/her mind that any kind
    of sacrificing of your own life in battle is not of God at all...that
    it is sinful to defend one's country through armed conflict.
    
    -Jack

Here's what my dictionary has to say about pacifism:

1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; refusal
to bear arms on moral or religious grounds

2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance.

This says to me that a pacifist believes is it wrong to participate in
both war as well as any other violence. 

I'll leave it to others more learned than myself to declare either the
christian basis for pacifism or the declaration of what is sinful and
what is not.

TTom

Jack,

	I'm answering that a pacifist is one who accepts social
responsibility by refusing to rationalize the use of deadly force,
especially when it's deliberate and regimented, as a means to a
desired end.

	If you'll do a little investigation (which I suspect you
won't), you'll find there's actually a continuum between the warist
and the pacifist perspectives.

Richard

ZZ            If you'll do a little investigation (which I suspect you
ZZ    won't), 
    
    Perhaps...perhaps not.  I consider a forum like this a wealth of
    information just as I would any other source.
    
    -Jack

    I consider this forum as much a source of information as talking
    with my neighbor over the backyard fence.
    
    Richard
    

    	Yeah, Richard, but the neighbors here are all Winsons.
    	At least you don't see most of our faces!
    
    	:^)

    Richard:
    
    I consider anybody who claims to be a pacifist somebody with well
    grounded reasons.  Therefore, I would expect somebody to have an
    opinion of the inquiries I've made on community and cultural
    responsibilities.
    
    -Jack

    
    .333 Tom,
    
    Hi.  If I recall correctly you made a point by limiting the proof for
    your point to the NT only and specifically excluded any opportunity to 
    discuss the OT in contradiction to your proof.  In any case, I didn't
    mean to ruffle your feathers at all.  So sorry.
    
    jeff

Nor I yours, Jeff.

To me, often the Old Testament and the New Testament speak very
differently on certain issues.

The Old Testament offers at best a case against pacifism, which it
reading on this matter can also be called pacificism, which is about a
mouthful. If that is all we go by, then Christians should be up in arms
defending their faith, which has been tried several times since the time
of Christ. Between God, and the guy in the next kingdom, life was violent
in the Old Testament.

The New Testament, especially the words and action of Jesus give a
completely different story, at least right up to the predicted end.
Revelation to me sounds like the time when things have completely come
back around to the violence of the Old Testament.

So, the question arises, what is the Biblical position on the legitamacy
of taking up arms and killing one another?

TTom

    TTom:
    
    Were the words of Christ restricted to the local church, or were they a
    message to the governments of the world?
    
    -Jack

I think that the teachings of Christ are universal in their message.

Often, they are directed at a specific group in a specific set of events
but I think that his message is clearly a universal one, meant to heard
by all.

I also believe that Jesus performed the ultimate act of pacifism.

TTom

    
    TTom,
    
    I am not prepared to present the ethical case for and against Christian
    pacifism.  I personally find the argument against pacifism more
    compelling but there are pacifistic options based upon the Bible which are 
    defendable.
    
    jeff

>    Were the words of Christ restricted to the local church, or were they a
>    message to the governments of the world?
    
The words of Christ were and are for anyone willing to hear them.  This
argument is about as reasonable as saying that since Jesus didn't speak
English, his words weren't intended to apply to English-speaking people.

Richard

	"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom
	by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred...
	We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate
	into violence.  Again and again, we must rise to the
	majestic heights of meeting physical force with
	soul force."

    					-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
    					   (quoted in "Not By the Sword"
    					    by Kathryn Watterson)
    

    ZZ       "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom
    ZZ        by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred...
    
    This presumes that defending ones property must require an attitude of
    bitterness and hatred.  This is a fallacy.
    
    -Jack

re .301
        
    Jack,
    
    Welcome back,
    
;    My question is still unanswered and wasn't addressed adequately by
;    Phil.  Does Pacifism mean ignoring the cries of an abducted country,
;    i.e. Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.  
    
    Just to let you know, I'm not a Pacifist, hence in this discussion I'm
    not really backing their point of view. For example, I'm not against
    Armageddon for it will rid the world of wickedness. Also, as a united
    brotherhood if we see our brothers are in need in war torn countries
    then we send help straight away through whatever means. The countries
    realise that we are neutral and pose no threat to them, hence often
    the aid gets through.
    
;    In other words, if you pass a house where a
;    woman is being accosted, and you go in and whack the perpetrator over
;    the head with a baseball bat, then what differentiates you from a
;    soldier?
    
    Jack, not everyone would act that way by confronting the person with
    a baseball bat. Ones presense can be enough to deter someone or diffuse
    the situation (the reason I say this is that there are many domestic
    squabbles that can turn real nasty), also one should ensure that the 
    police are called to deal with it.
    
    I know, you find my stance hard one to understand but it's influenced
    by Scriptures such as 2 Cor 10:3,4 NWT "Though we walk in the flesh
    we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the
    weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for
    overturning strongly entrenched things." What's Paul saying here? is
    not that he never resorted to using fleshly weapons to protect the
    congregation from false teachings? That is such things as trickery,
    high sounding language, or even carnal weapons.
    
    Luke 6:27,28 NWT "I [Jesus Christ] say to you who are listening,
    Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you,
    to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting
    you." To whom would one be listening to if they bore arms, Jesus
    or Uncle Sam?.
    
    Matthew 26:52 NWT "Jesus said to him:'Return your sword to it's
    place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"
    I can't think of a higher cause to fight for than the "Son of God".
    Yet, Jesus indicates that his disciples were not to resort to weapons 
    of physical warfare.
    
    A Deuteronomy scripture (chapter and verse escapes me at the moment)
    that says it is wrong to take the life of a fellowman. The sobering
    thought of modern warfare, is the majority of those being killed are
    civilians including women and children. If I remember rightly a UNICHEF
    study  mentioned it as high as 80%, this is in comparison to about 5%
    in World War I. Innocents on both sides of wars are being slaughtered
    by modern weapons, who's going to bring a halt to it? should one
    participate in such indiscriminate slaughter?. 
    
    Phil.                
    
    

>    This presumes that defending ones property must require an attitude of
>    bitterness and hatred.  This is a fallacy.

It is a fallacy to say that it is required. However, they are often
present.

Of course, this deflects the basic message which Jesus mentions in
Matthew:

5:39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
 thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I think this pretty much covers both sides of this issue.

TTom

    I believe King's quote was about more than looking out for one's
    own goods.
    
    Richard
    

CPTNET August 14, 1995

CPT TO EXPAND CHRISTIAN PEACEMAKER CORPS

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) seeks to complete a twelve
person Christian Peacemaker Corps (CPC) by adding seven new
members in January 1996.  CPC is a group of full-time peace
workers who are trained to go anywhere in the world on short
notice to confront outbreaks of violence.  An intensive training
will take place in Chicago from December 26, 1995 through January
20, 1996.  CPT also seeks volunteers for the Reserve Corps, whose
members join CPT's work for 2-8 weeks each year as they are able.

CPC welcomes applicants in an age range of 21 through
75 years.  Important qualifications for Corps members include a
deeply grounded faith and commitment to peacemaking, experience
with nonviolent direct action, and sufficient freedom from
responsibilities in order to serve in crisis situations.

CPC members give skilled support to local peacemakers in
specific conflict situations.  They provide home congregations
and communities with first-hand information and resources for
responding to worldwide situations of conflict and urge their
active involvement.  The CPC members communicate a Christian
nonviolent perspective to the media, inspiring people and
governments to choose nonviolent action instead of violence as a
means for settling disputes.

For information or an application, contact Janice Kulp Long at
CPT, 950 Heather Drive, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, Tel. FAX 540-953-
3111, e-mail at cpt2@igc.apc.org.

Christian Peacemaker Teams is a program of the Church of the  
Brethren,  Mennonite congregations of North America.  Contact CPT
P. O. Box 6508 Chicago, IL 60680 tel. FAX 312-455-1199 e-mail 
cpt@igc.apc.org.

ZZ    A Deuteronomy scripture (chapter and verse escapes me at the
ZZ    moment) that says it is wrong to take the life of a fellowman. 
    
    Hi Phil:
    
    Since the Mosaic law required the death penalty for many of the
    transgressions, i.e. working on the Sabbath, then I have to assume the
    Deuteronomy passage is referring to premeditated murder.  Otherwise, it
    would be inconsistent.
    
    The point you bring up are valid and appropriate.  One might say
    calling the police is similar to calling the army.  The National guard
    has been called..not to shoot on sight but to keep order in an
    emergency.  Sometimes, a violent response is needed to defray a
    potentially dangerous situation.  I don't like it anymore than a
    pacifist does...and I don't rah rah behind the flag and shout for the
    blood of the enemy.  But I do believe it isn't ungodly to maintain a
    strong defense or deterrent provided it's practical and used ONLY when
    necessary.  As I discussed with Richard, I believe Truman should have
    had a delegation from Japan to see the bomb tested.  In this case, they
    didn't exhaust all options.  Still I have to believe the bomb saved
    many American lives.  The datum is there!
    
    -Jack

A lot of people have thrown out a lot of numbers, Jack.  But that's no more
data than a fisherman's account of the one that got away.

Truman's numbers inflated with nothing more than the passage of time.

Richard

A general question,

Richard,

The old testament is full of murder and mayhem, much of it initiated or 
assisted by God Himself, so I assume that God, at least, is not a pacifist, 
although it appears that Jesus probably was. 

Both, however, have the power to easily and painlessly (to all concerned) 
stop atrocities, war, etc., but choose not to do so. So it seems to me that 
pacifism, although somewhat backed up by the Bible, is not backed up by 
example.

On the other hand (for Jack), if God himself chooses not to interfere 
against even the most vile atrocities, who are we to argue?

Steve

Note 369.357

>The old testament is full of murder and mayhem, much of it initiated or 
>assisted by God Himself, so I assume that God, at least, is not a pacifist, 
>although it appears that Jesus probably was.

I've invested a great deal of time and effort gnawing on this.  I've prayed
and meditated.  I've consulted both the wise and the dull.  I've poured over
volumes of written material.  I've studied history and human nature.  It
was no breezy overnight task to get to where I am presently.

A superficial reading of the Hebrew Bible does seem to portray God as some
bloodthirsty warlord.

>Both, however, have the power to easily and painlessly (to all concerned) 
>stop atrocities, war, etc., but choose not to do so. So it seems to me that 
>pacifism, although somewhat backed up by the Bible, is not backed up by 
>example.

I've not formulated to what extent God will override the actions of humans.
At times God appears helpless.  According to gospel accounts, Jesus was
ridiculed while he hung from the cross for his inability to save himself.

I noticed you draw a sharp distinction between God and Jesus.  You'd make a
good Marcionite or perhaps a Unitarian.  ;-}

Shalom,
Richard

>A superficial reading of the Hebrew Bible does seem to portray God as some
>bloodthirsty warlord.
    
    I disagree.  I think such images are more isolated and infrequent. 
    There are many beautiful images too, such as our Abba in Hosea 11.
    
    Mike

>    I disagree.  I think such images are more isolated and infrequent. 

Wa-a-y-t a minute!!  I'm supposed to be the one saying stuff like this!

/:-)

Richard

.358

  I've invested a great deal of time and effort gnawing on this.  I've   
prayed and meditated.  I've consulted both the wise and the dull.  
                                                              ^^^^
Glad I could help! :^)

>Both, however, have the power to easily and painlessly (to all concerned) 
>stop atrocities, war, etc., but choose not to do so. So it seems to me that 
>pacifism, although somewhat backed up by the Bible, is not backed up by 
>example.

I screwed this one up entirely. I meant to say that the non-involvement of 
deities with humans (in general) *DOES* back pacifism. It appears that God 
is a pacifist in this light...

BTW, I didn't mean to imply ridicule, and I hope that you didn't take it 
that way. Although I don't agree with all tenants of your stand, I do admit 
the world would be a far better place to live if we all embraced it, and I 
respect and admire you for your courage. 

>I noticed you draw a sharp distinction between God and Jesus.  You'd make a
>good Marcionite or perhaps a Unitarian.  ;-}

How's about a Marcitarian?

Steve

.362

>I screwed this one up entirely. I meant to say that the non-involvement of 
>deities with humans (in general) *DOES* back pacifism. It appears that God 
>is a pacifist in this light...

What you seem to be talking about here is Deism.  Metaphorically speaking,
Deism is the notion of a clockmaker God who built the clock, wound it up
and then stepped back to let it run on it's own.

I do not embrace that notion.

>BTW, I didn't mean to imply ridicule, and I hope that you didn't take it 
>that way. Although I don't agree with all tenants of your stand, I do admit 
>the world would be a far better place to live if we all embraced it, and I 
>respect and admire you for your courage. 

I detected no ridicule.

Shalom,
Richard

re .355

Hi Jack,

Hope you enjoyed your vacation today. I'll be on vacation
myself as of tomorrow for a couple of weeks.

ZZ    A Deuteronomy scripture (chapter and verse escapes me at the
ZZ    moment) that says it is wrong to take the life of a fellowman. 
        
>    Since the Mosaic law required the death penalty for many of the
>    transgressions, i.e. working on the Sabbath, then I have to assume the
>    Deuteronomy passage is referring to premeditated murder.  Otherwise, it
>    would be inconsistent.

There were passages in the Mosaic Law that showed that those who caused
the accidental death of fellow humans were not viewed as guiltless. Take
Exodus 21:29,30; Deuteronomy 22:8 & Numbers 35:22-25 for example. This
principle in a modern day setting could be, to be careful in not
contributing to what could be the cause of a fatal car accident, by speeding
or taking unnecessary chances when driving. Or allowing unsafe conditions
to exist in our home or work place. But as I see it, in the war arena the
taking of life is premeditated though many would argue if it was murder.
It is however important to get God's view on this for man is accountable for
his actions as brought out by Genesis 9:6, in shedding blood. Further, Micah 
4:3 KJV reads "And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong 
nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their 
spears into pruninghooks: nation will lift up a sword against nation, neither 
shall they learn war anymore." Now, I know you believe that this is talking
of a time in the future, but from this verse one can see God's view of carnal 
warfare among mankind and act accordingly. One should also note, that from 
God's viewpoint, that just refraining from murder does not keep a person 
from being guiltless. For Scripture such as Micah 4:3 and Revelation 18:4,24 
shows that if an organisation is bloodguilty before God, then as an 
individual one would have to sever ties so as to not share in its sins.
    
;    The point you bring up are valid and appropriate.  One might say
;    calling the police is similar to calling the army.  The National guard
;    has been called..not to shoot on sight but to keep order in an
;    emergency.  Sometimes, a violent response is needed to defray a
;    potentially dangerous situation.  I don't like it anymore than a
;    pacifist does...and I don't rah rah behind the flag and shout for the
;    blood of the enemy.  But I do believe it isn't ungodly to maintain a
;    strong defense or deterrent provided it's practical and used ONLY when
;    necessary.  As I discussed with Richard, I believe Truman should have
;    had a delegation from Japan to see the bomb tested.  In this case, they
;    didn't exhaust all options.  Still I have to believe the bomb saved
;    many American lives.  The datum is there!

Thanks, I understand your view for the need to keep a strong defense. But,
for a Christian should not the defense be a spiritual one?. Using the
spiritual armour that God supplies in such a way to keep one spotless from
the world and it's influence (compare 2 Corinthians 10:3,4). This is surely 
more important than defending ones physical needs, as Jesus said "And do not 
become fearful of those that kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but 
rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." 
Matthew 10:28 NWT . The evidence in conflicts such as in Rwanda is that
many professing Christians including the clergy have got mixed up in the
conflict, and become blemished in the shedding of innocent blood. 

Regarding the bomb saving many American lives, I question whether a
Christian would take the life of another to save his own life. Especially,
seeing the example of Jesus was to lay down his life so that others might
live and that his followers were to follow this example. The love Jesus
showed in that he didn't value his own life to be of more value than that 
of others eventhough they were sinners, some having the intent of taking
his life. There is another way to save life and bring peace, rather than
using the bomb. A German who has lived in America for many years was
ridiculed for his neutral stance during conflicts of war, in reply he said 
that if he had become a Jehovah's Witness before the war then 35 or so
Americans may have survived World War II. The ways of peace have to be
learnt to experience peace. 


Phil.
    
    

.364

Richard, 

It may be Deism, but to the best of my knowledge it is also the way that God
is letting the universe run, i.e. I can detect no direct intervention by 
supernatural sources in the affairs of men.

Steve

    .365 (a reply to my .363)
    
    	Deism is not a bad word in my vocabulary. ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	"In war, the first casualty is truth."

						-- Aeschylus

    

	"The supreme trick of mass insanity is that it persuades you
	that the only abnormal person is the one who refuses to join
		in the madness."

						-- Ionesco
    
    

================================================================================
Note 1143.116                   Hebrew Scriptures                     116 of 124
POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"              38 lines   2-NOV-1995 12:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    cindy,
    
    Paganism is a fertility religion.  It honors the cycles of the year. 
    The gods and goddesses of paganism are deemed to bring about fertility.
    
    The Israeli people of ancient Israel emerged from Canaan.  In early
    Israel, every nation had there own god and Yahwew arose as the God of
    the Israeli.  As the religion evolved, Yahweh evolved as the only God. 
    Hebrew Monotheism arouse.
    
    In the earliest stories, particularly in the stories of the Hebrew
    expansion into Caanan, Yahweh is pictured as a God, mighty in battle. 
    A God that can bring defeat to all of Israel's enemies.
    
    Through the Old Testament(Hebrew Scriptures) the Israel people are
    shown as a people who waver between the worship of Yahweh and the
    worship of other Gods and Goddesses particularly Baal and His female
    consort Asherah.  Of course from the perspective of the theologians who
    wrote the Bible, this wavering back and forth is considered Apostacy.
    
    If we read the Old Testament and bracket the denounciation of the pagan
    practices, we learn a lot about cultural patterns, and the religious
    life of the people.  The God potrayed in the old testament evolves from
    a tribal war God to a Universal God.  In the New Testament, God is no
    longer potrayed as a God of war.  In fact Jesus himself turns the war
    mentality upside down.  He comes to establish the kingdom of God, but
    not by war, but by being cruxified.  By turning the other cheek.
    
    Unfortunately, my bias right now is pretty negative on the Old
    Testament.  But then again, the books I am studying right now, Joshua,
    Judges, Samuel 1+2 Kings, are not nice stories.
    
    I am struggling!
    
    
                                   Patricia
    

Dec. 18, 1995
CHRISTMAS WISDOM FROM CPT

This Christmas let's honor the Wise Men who disobeyed the king's
command because they had a dream.

In the rich Biblical tradition of civil disobedience, no event is
more exemplary than the action of those travelers from the East. 
Herod the king told them, "Go and search diligently for the child,
and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and
pay him homage." 

But they did not return to Herod.  Why not?  A dream--they had a
dream--which told them to disobey the king, and go another way. 

The world today has a problem.  There are not enough people who have
a dream (or who obey their dream) after the king, or president, or
civil law has spoken. How about you?  Are you still listening for
the dream after the law is written, the contract is signed, or the
"No Trespassing" sign is posted on the nuclear base? 

CPT intends to follow the star, have the dream, disobey the
king--whatever it takes to say "yes" to God. 

One bumper sticker says, WISE MEN STILL SEEK HIM.  That's good. 
Another one should say, WISE PEOPLE STILL DISOBEY KINGS.  The dream
is older than kings--and newer. This year let's have the Christmas
dream and obey it.

written by John Stoner for all of us here at CPT

Peace:

1. A state of quiet or tranquility; freedom from disturbance or
   agitation; calm; repose.

2. Freedom from war; exemption from, or cessation of, hostilities;
   absence of embroilment with private, civil, or foreign enemies.

3. Quiet and order as guaranteed by the laws; absence of civil
   disturbance; public tranquility.

4. A state of reconciliation between parties of variance; harmony;
   concord.

5. The Presence of the Holy One.

It's true that peace can be coerced through military deployment.  But it's
sort of like saying, "There will be peace or there'll be Hell to pay!"
It is my understanding that peace through coercion tends to be volatile
and tentative, and is not the kind of peace the Christian seeks or pursues.

I recall hearing each of the parties who came to the table over Bosnia
explain they were doing so because they were "sick of the killing."  Perhaps
the trick is to somehow become sick of the killing before the killing
even starts.

As a gesture of friendship and goodwill, I recall former President Reagan
presenting Mikail Gorbachev with a copy of the classic motion picture,
"Friendly Persuasion."  In one scene from the film, with the War between
the States creeping closer to their farms and armed conflict seeming
immanent, Jess Birdwell's neighbor tells him that "Someone has to hold
out for a better way."  It seems to me that part of the mission of the
Christian is to hold out for that better way.

Shalom,
Richard

	"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

						- Jeanette Rankin