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.
Well, perhaps you are right. I just don't know.
When the Romans finally invaded old Israel intent on destroying Jerusalem, the Christian Jews didn't fight with the other Jews against the Romans. And the Christian Jews didn't fight with the Romans against the other Jews. Neither did the Christian Jews just sort of hang out in the middle of the bloodshed hoping they didn't get hurt, hoping they didn't get forced to choose up sides or get used by one side or the other as hostages...
The usually accepted history goes something like this:
... Not one Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem. Christ had given His disciples warning, and all who believed His words watched for the promised sign. "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies," said Jesus, "then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out." Luke 21:20, 21. After the Romans under Cestius had surrounded the city, they unexpectedly abandoned the siege when everything seemed favorable for an immediate attack. The besieged, despairing of successful resistance, were on the point of surrender, when the Roman general withdrew his forces without the least apparent reason. But God's merciful providence was directing events for the good of His own people. The promised sign had been given to the waiting Christians, and now an opportunity was offered for all who would, to obey the Saviour's warning. Events were so overruled that neither Jews nor Romans should hinder the flight of the Christians. Upon the retreat of Cestius, the Jews, sallying from Jerusalem, pursued after his retiring army; and while both forces were thus fully engaged, the Christians had an opportunity to leave the city. At this time the country also had been cleared of enemies who might have endeavored to intercept them. At the time of the siege, the Jews were assembled at Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles, and thus the Christians throughout the land were able to make their escape unmolested. Without delay they fled to a place of safety--the city of Pella, in the land of Perea, beyond Jordan. ...
[The Great Controversy, Chapter 1, The Destruction of Jerusalem, p. 30-31]
The vision of Christians as idiots who sit around while real people go about the business of real life trying somehow to work around the doofus Christians is an embarassing one. Rather than being "inconvenient," it is simply inconsistent with actual Christianity, and seems to owe more to fringe Catholic sects than Christian history.
Mark W.
When you sow the wind you do reap the whirlwind. Bad things happen in war zones. The blowing up of families who were sitting down to partake in a Biblically mandated celebration started this latest round of dire things.
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.
Do you also reject moral equivalence between that and the actions of IDF that is specifically not targeting civilians?
But as a Christian, I assume you like me, reject the ethics of payback.
This is not pay back but an attempt to bring terrorist to justice and hopefully prevent future homicide bombings. If this were pay back the Israelis would have simply started shelling or started playing by Hama rules like Syria did in the early 80’s
The Franciscans are refusing to choose sides not because they're terrorist sympathizers 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.
There is that moral equivalence thing again. So,by your words, in the eyes of the Franciscans both sides are evil. Terrorist and Soldier all the same.
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 quite aware of the history here. And I disagree with both the concept and how it is being used.
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 vision of what the Church is.
The larger vision of the Catholic church is to shelter terrorists? From their resent actions here and in other places it does seem so. If that is not the case they need to start making that clear. Or this could get real ugly real fast.
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?
Now, that statement is the height of arrogance. Why should they need saving? As to the idea that the Israelis are reducing the so-called palestinians to sub-human, isn’t that something that they have done to themselves? When you teach your child to hate to the point that he or she will go commit a homicide bombing and then encourage then to do so and then accept money for that action… Well, what more is there to say? No one did that to them, they did it to themselves. As they have made choices that have left them without a state. Actions have consequences.
Compare the actions of the Israelis to those of the rest of the Muslim world. Do you see dancing in the street? Or do you see a professional attempt to protect themselves while attempting to keep the civilian causalities on the other side to a minimum.
If reconciliation sounds preposterous and impossible-just as preposterous as "love your enemy"-so did "He is risen." It's the only solution.
Only if both sides want peace. Otherwise you do not have a solution, just a recipe for suicide for one side.
a.cricket
We can forgive them for killing our children, what we can not forgive is that they are making us kill their children. Golda Meyer