Let's see one side tries to limit civilian casualties the other to create civilian casualties. And this is not good guys vs. bad guys? What am I missing here?
The clergy in the church have testified numerout times that they're not hostages, as have others on the outside. If such statements were being made only for public consumption, it wouldn't explain the vehemence from the Vatican and Rome that the Israelis need to back off.
Then they have chosen sides in this and they should be treated in exactly the same way that the peaceniks in Arafat's compound are being treated. I am not a respector of persons when it comes to that.
You appear to have surrendered to the secularist notion that all right and all law come from men. You're wrong there too.
Where did you get that idea? I quoted scripture to prove my point. There was no rush by the early church to locate and sanctify the birthplace of Jesus or any other so called "Holy Site." God is in the hearts of those who serve him. The only places that are Holy are those He Himself declared holy.
Would I be sad if the church building was destroyed? Of course, but it is not worth protecting with human life. Wars have raged around this spot before and wars will continue to rage around it until the end of the earth it's self.
That wasn't much of a flaming, was it?
No, you were very polite. I tried to be just as polite in disagreeing with you.
a.cricket
And which side would that be? Some really dire things happened to civilians on the West Bank last week. And no, I do not justify the PA's horrific record of terror bombings of Jews, no more than I do its cynical manipulation of its people in that direction. But as a Christian, I assume you like me, reject the ethics of payback.
Then they have chosen sides in this and they should be treated in exactly the same way that the peaceniks in Arafat's compound are being treated. I am not a respector of persons when it comes to that.
The Franciscans are refusing to choose sides not because they're terrorist sympathisers or moral cowards who refuse to distinguish between good and evil, but because they're moral heroes who refuse to let one evil stampede them into the arms of another. Christianity is full of such inconveniences, but it's the spiritual legacy of Francis that moral clarity is a simple matter that once accepted, no matter how superficially inconvenient, allows everything else to snap into place.
You seem to be unaware that the Church's historical role as sanctuary has nothing to do with the moral worthiness of the refugee. Sanctuary is not about moral cowardice and sheltering the guilty; it's about non-violence, reconciliation, and the nature of sacred space. These concepts don't receive much attention in our culture, but they deserve to. I am not implying that the clergy are happy to have their church full of armed men. But isn't that the way it always is? Being a Christian means just one damn thing after another; the Christian life is full of such and even worse inconveniences and dangers that are entirely without meaning to those who're blind to the larger imaginative vison of what the Church is.
The Israelis are doing a more-than-competent job of defending themselves from the Palestinians, but I invite you to ponder, once they've succeeded in reducing the Palestinians to subhumans or stateless refugees, who will save the Israelis from themselves?
If reconciliation sounds preposterous and impossible-just as preposterous as "love your enemy"-so did "He is risen." It's the only solution.