Skip to comments.Council of Bishops calls for immediate Iraq withdrawal (Methodist)
Posted on 11/21/2007 9:21:33 AM PST by PAR35
Declaring war "incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ," the bishops of The United Methodist Church called on leaders of all nations to begin an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
The bishops also urged against deploying additional troops to Iraq and against establishing permanent military bases in the Middle Eastern country.
(Excerpt) Read more at umc.org ...
Last I checked we didn’t “declare” war.
What? No mention of Kosovo?
"As He died to make men Holy - Let us die to make men free...."
There. Fixed it.
God only supports wars led by Democrats ... It’s in the Bible or ssomething.
-JS Mill, 1863
Oh yes, these evil doers.
I mean because building schools and risking lives to protect others just completely goes against the teachings of christianity and should be considered ‘warfare’. /sarc
I’ll let these liberal fakers in on the 411. Christ is going to slay millions of the anti-christ’s army with the Word of His mouth. And Christ will throw the anti-christ and the false prophet alive into the lake of fire. It’s going to be a war, but the fighting will not last long.
When they call 9-1-1, do they ask for an unarmed cop to drop by?
When did the Methodists merge with Code Pink and how did I ever miss that story?
They want Iraq to have the kind of society that will torture rape victims.
Yeah, well I call for immediate withdrawal of my letter from the so-called methodist church... as of LAST YEAR.
The United Methodist Church is inclusive to everybody but Jesus.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Following Christian beliefs is not a suicide pact....
They want to kill us or convert us, I say you can go down like a lamb, for me, I guess in the end, I'll have to beg for forgiveness..
Se le guerre.
Doesn’t Hillary Clinton claim to be a Methodist?
UMC is a proud member of NCCCUSA.
And just when our efforts are bearing fruit. American success cannot be tolerated. I suggest the Methodist Clergy go help fill the vacuum left when we leave.
Call the IRS. Time to check up on their non-political tax-exempt status.
No IRS issues here.
God will however fight that battle for us. I do believe though that these individuals or maybe even the whole church is in error. When Christ met Cornelius he did not condemn him for being a “babykiller” or any of the such but instead knew being a soldier was an honest profession. Besides that he was more concerned with what actually mattered, his great faith.
No, ladies and gentlemen. But I DO think we should have the common courtesy to offer the insurgents a reacharound.
Worth repeating in BOLD! Nice, succinct comment.
When you let intellectual lightweights take over your church, you get asinine statements like this.
Was there a reason that Hedley Lamarr had Methodists on his list of the “worst criminals ever to soil the face of the west” in Blazing Saddles?
That old guy was a genius before his time.
There is no Godly blessing to be pronounced over the killing of fellow humans. There is no strand of New Testament teaching or slivers of proof-text verses that put a Christian stamp of approval upon war. War is hell. War is of the devil. And anyone who thinks that there are or can be rules for the civilized, organized, lethal infliction of deadly force is delusional.
Over 150 Christian leaders worldwide have declared that our nation building action in Iraq does not comport as a “just war.” I am not sure what they would say had we attacked the financiers of the 911 attack (Saudi Arabia)or Pakistan where most of the terrorists came from and where even today like minded terrorists find refuge, so what Christian denomination should we attack next for their opposition to this war?
The Pope and Catholics?
Is the conflict in IRaq part of a "just war." I think so, and so does the President, who is also a Methodist.
Our bishops tend to be liberal, politically motivated, and totally untrained on military subjects. That's why is fairly easy to ignore them when they get on one of their utopian binges.
Another thing to notice about this statement is that it obviously was written by a committee and then a body in session. One side wants us to be a pacifist denomination; the other wants to allow for just war.
From the 2004 BOD, probably about Para 161 or 162 - We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ.
We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy, to be employed only as a last resort in the prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unprovoked international aggression.
We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them; that human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned.
Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
To quote Napoleon:
“And just how many cannon does the Pope have?”
I agree, we should withdraw from Iraq immediately
points to tagline
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
Don’t confuse the clergy with the bishops. These so-called leaders of the UMC are a million miles away from the people in the pews. It’s sort of like having Nancy Pelosi as your representative. Not much you can do about it. My little country church is very very conservative.
The Pentagon is now going to rule that Methodism must completely renounce the gay lifestyle and single-sex marriage. John Wesley must be turning over in his grave.
I don’t think he consulted the Methodist’s BOD, but I’m positive there was a lot of “Just War” language going back and forth at the time.
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
(War in Kuwait, Iran and on the people of Iraq themselves. Millions dead by Saddam's hand, a continual state of blockade imposed on the Iraqi people by UN Sanctions and the No Fly Zone_) causing malnutrition and suffering to the people of Iraq
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
(Saddam routinely violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf war, supported International Terrorists, fired on Coalition aircraft and refused to cooperate with UN Weapons Inspectors. He so routinely violated the existing 1991 Ceasefire that there was no hope of any future agreement with him being taken seriously by the Iraqi regime
* there must be serious prospects of success;
Obviously done by anyone who critically thinks about Iraq instead of just mindlessly clings to Neo Isolationist Paulbot dogma know this criteria is met.
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
25 million person nation liberated after 40 years of oppression. No more rape rooms, children prisons, torture chambers, or mass graves. No more UN Sanctions. A free Democratically elected Govt taking shape. Far fewer casualties to either the Iraqis or the Coalition then could ever reasonably been expected. Less collateral damage, few civilian deaths per capita then any other similar military effort in history.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Iraq qualifies under all these categories. The Pope is wrong.
Sorry but the days of Papal infallibility are LONG gone. The Pope, like the Bishops, are WRONG about Iraq. Which is no surprise since ALL junk media sources of info on it are essentially lying to them by omission. They are given a highly slanted, politically partisan, frequently erronous world view by propagandists pretending to be "Journalists".
Like any other human agenda, any Church leadership is quite capable of error. Learn to live with it.
The Pope is wrong and MNJohnnie is right?
But I am much more inclined to believe the Pope then I am MNJohnnie...and I’m not even Catholic.
The goal of the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere in the MidEast if to remove the forces of evil and bring peace to that part of the world. This goal is consistent with the Government’s responsibility to protect it’s people.
The real peacemakers are those who risk their lives, (be they American Iraqi, or any of the Coalition forces,) that peace might have a chance.
Name one religious leader in the world who supports them, and seeks peace in a meaningful way - other than one one who came to bring peace 2000 years ago.
“Was there a reason that Hedley Lamarr had Methodists on his list of the worst criminals ever to soil the face of the west in Blazing Saddles?”
Howard Johnson was right!
A house divided against itself cannot stand!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.