Speaking of Anglican, he has a very thoughtful post this morning about the difficulties of our conversations about politics and religion. It is one thing to debate, as I am with one of our friends, tax policy. It is another to debate whether Obama is a muslim, or possibly, as Jill Stanek is trying to argue lately, in favor of infanticide. Where is the common ground there?
As I have argued elsewhere, there are people on both sides of the debate who have no interest in common ground and have no interest in a dialogue. I fear very much that those people, while on the periphery of the Democratic party, are central to the Republicans, and I further fear that Rick Warren is just another one of those Christianist leaders.
Consider the DMN RELIGION Blog's quote of the day:
"'I've gotten a lot of questions the last few weeks asking if Obama is the antichrist. I tell everyone that I don't think the antichrist will come out of politics, especially American politics.'How do we have a reasonable discussion when people are asking of one of the candidates is the symbol of evil? How does that conversation occur? How has intwining the far right into politics (where compromise and negotiation are the watchword) made us any better?
-- Jerry B. Jenkins, co-author of the 'Left Behind' apocalyptic novels (quoted by Christian News Wire)"
The strange bedfellows part sure has worked. Christian evangelicals tacitly supporting torture, and cheering on a disastrous war.
39 comments:
Unfortunately, there are many topics that are difficult to find common ground on and that are central to both parties. The democrats certainly have some issues, such as gun control, that they don't seem willing to find common ground.
Actually, I am not sure how you can say that. Do we have complete gun control? That sounds like anyone who considers any form of gun control isn't willing to compromise. That isn't what you mean, is it?
It depends on what kind of control you are talking about and what you are basing it on. It also depends on how one views the second amendment and what it should mean in terms of current laws and policies. I am sure there is room for reasonable compromise, but I don't see that very often from mainstream Democrats and places like HuffPo and Kos.
To be fair, Republicans aren't always great on this issue and there are some Democrats that aren't pro-gun control. I'd be happy to continue this discussion, but I don't want to derail the original topic.
BTW, I am glad your leg is feeling better.
Democrats have basically decided to leave gun control to the states and drop it from their federal campaigns.
I know avid gun collectors who are democrats, and to be honest, this republican has never noticed democrats being united on about ANY topic. Talk about herding cats! ;)
For me, saying 'they' want to 'take our guns away' is an old, tired, right wing talking point.*
*I am not suggesting the poster said that, it is a typical point, however.
m-i-t, I have heard the same thing and I am not so paranoid that the Dems are just waiting to take all my guns. That being said, many of the proponents of federal gun control are still in office, such as Feinstein, Lautenberg, McCarthy, and Kennedy and others who would be comfortable with a level of gun control that I am not.
Therefore, I have developed a cautious attitude because some, such as Obama, have a history of supporting legislation that I disagree with. I would like to believe they are willing to change, but i am not always sure.
I agree with Steves, it depends on how you mean "gun control." If that means stricter requirements such as extensive background check, required classes, etc then I have no issue with Gun Control. If it means the government limits the type, amount, or use of a gun...then I got issues
So.. just trying to understand, are we saying that being pro-gun is the Christian position and pro-gun control is not? Or am I missing something completely?
So.. just trying to understand, are we saying that being pro-gun is the Christian position and pro-gun control is not? Or am I missing something completely?
Huh? No, I am not saying that, nor have I ever said that. I have always framed my pro-gun arguments in the Constitution.
No, Steve has never suggested anything of the sort, and neither has FP.
Actually, this kind of speaks to my main point (If I dare) that while we might have absolutists on the left on this issue, that is not driving the political dialogue in some kind of single-issue way.
For now, the right seems to have the absolutism market locked up. As we have talked here and elsewhere, there is a lot of room for compromise and discussion. Just not in Rick Warren's mind.
Ok, I was getting confused, as I often do. But remember, I am from Oklahoma, where Church summer camps hand out rifles as prizes.
I'm no historian, but it seems like the political behavior of evangelicals makes a lot of sense as an extension of 18th-century Scottish nationalism that became American nationalism after Scotch Presbyterians couldn't convince the world that Scotland was the new Israel. That seems to be the dominant thread running through the fabric of the American religious right, rather than anything to do with principles or the gospel.
I've only read a couple of books on the topic, and I have to admit that its sole virtue as an explanatory hypothesis (on my end) is that it lets me see these things in the news and say "Hmm, that makes sense" rather than "Uhhh....whut."
I should clarify that what specifically reminds me of this is that there's this attitude in a lot of churches that if we clean up America's morals (by getting rid of abortions and gay people), then God will magically take care of everything else.
For now, the right seems to have the absolutism market locked up.
I don't know about locked up, but I would give them the edge right now. Following the Heller decision, I heard plenty from the left that suggested absolutism. To be fair, there were some on the national stage (including Obama) that said the decision was fine.
When we lose the right to bear arms, we lose the right to be conservative, liberal, homosexual, Christian, pacifist, etc.
So I guess there are some absolutism involved here.
Actually, if we lose the right to habeas review, we lose the right to all these others. And Bush has been quite casual with that huge historical right.
Could you show me where an american citizen was denied this right?
I would agree that losing either of those rights would be a dangerous road to travel down.
The supreme court didnt rule that Gitmo had the right until June of this year. Which I disagree with. The Constitution and the rights in there are for American Citizens not terrorist prisoners.
Steves, I agree with you. As citizens we can ill afford to lose either of them.
I will tell you that Bush wanted the ability to hold American citizens as "enemy combatants" without habeas review. The court denied him this right, but the very fact he wanted it was unbelievable.
My point was that you have the right to bear arms right now. But that right will not stop you from going to jail for another offense. Unless you have a stockade somewhere in Montana and are ready to shoot it out with the feds, your gun collection isn't protecting your rights.
But if you were charged arbitrarily and held without habeas review for whatever charge--you are done.
Could you show me where an american citizen was denied this right?
Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen that was held as an illegal combatant for 3 years without any kind of trial or legal proceeding.
Excellent point, Streak. I'd have to dig it up, but there is an OU (or OSU, I am not sure) Law Review article from the 1990's that argues the president should be allowed to detain militia members that were "deemed a threat" to the US gov't. This included suspending all sorts of due process protections and labeling them unlawful combatants.
While Clinton used other ways to go after gun owners, I am pleased that he didn't use the unlawful combatant approach. Unfortunately, Bush did use this on US citizens and he would continue to, if not for the Supreme Court. It does not take a paranoid to see this as wrong and how it could potentially be expanded to include other people that the state deems a threat.
Citizenship is meaningless for a sufficiently unsupervised government agency who finds it inconvenient. Most immigration lawyers who do removal defense will be able to give you examples of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) deporting US citizens without giving them a chance to review or appeal their case. They've always been heavy-handed, but under the Bush administration and especially in Chertoff's DHS, they've turned into a real monster.
I've ranted before about what they do to corporations without being subject to any kind of legislative, executive or judicial supervision, but that's a topic for another thread.
Steves...was he an illegal combatant? If he violated the Geneva Convention and was an actual illegal combatant then by military law he violated his ability to receive that treatment right?
Hmm. So a US Citizen is accused of violating the law and the President says that he is not a criminal, but an "enemy combatant" and denies him habeas review?
It is good to be king, I must say.
But it is not a democracy. Otherwise, FP, what is to stop the Pres from deciding that you are an enemy combatant? How would you contest that?
An enemy combatant is one caught in combat. IF, this man was caught in a combat zone not in uniform and not identified as a combatant then he or she has forfeited their right by the Geneva Convention.
Now IF that man was not engaged in a combat zone the President should be impeached.
I look at this a little different I guess.
If I catch you in Iraq as a civilian (illegal combatant) shooting at American soldiers you by the Geneava Convention and Military code are a traitor and should be shot on site.
So if you catch someone and they aren't shooting at you (any longer), and you find out they are actually a US citizen, you don't turn them over to a proper authority for adjudication. You just back up and shoot them?
If they surrender their weapons they according the Military Code and Geneva convention are brought before a Military Tribunal.
You know I understand where you guys are coming from, but Illegal Combatants are just that illegal and are not given the same rights as lawful combatants.
Further, because of "americans" who were illegal combatants I lost several friends. They have no rights when they go to a foreign country and fight in a war against american soldiers. They deserve death not your compassion or pity.
Ok. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
And what is more, we are mostly concerned here with the rights of citizens. If the President can remove habeas from a citizen, then citizens have no rights. It is pretty simple.
"The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."[3]
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[33]"
Ok...maybe we are not. I am talking about "american" citizen's who go to Iraq and abroad and fight against our Soldiers.
Steves brought up "Yaser Esam Hamdi" who was a "US Citizen" who was an illegal combatant. I am not sure what the situation is...but if he was in a combat zone conducting operations against American Soldiers, he has no rights.
Ok then.
And let me point out that all of God's children deserve some kind of compassion and pity. Or is that all talk?
The point was about removing habeas review from American citizens. If the President can do that, then none of us are free, and your gun collection won't save you from anything.
I think this thread has run its course into something ugly.
"Yaser Esam Hamdi (b. September 26, 1980) is a former American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. It is claimed by the U.S. government that he was fighting against U.S. and Afghan Northern Alliance forces with the Taliban. He was named by the Bush administration as an "illegal enemy combatant", and detained for almost three years without receiving any charges.
He was initially detained at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was later transferred to military jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen.
Critics of his imprisonment claimed his civil rights were violated and that he was denied due process of law under the U.S. Constitution, including imprisonment without formal charges and denial of legal representation.
In June 2004, the United States Supreme Court rejected the U.S. government's attempts to detain Hamdi indefinitely without trial.
On September 23, 2004, the United States Justice Department released Hamdi to Saudi Arabia on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship."
Steves, I respectfully disagree with you. He and John Walker Lindh was found as a Citizen of the US in a Combat Zone conducting operations against US Soldiers. He was found in an terrorist camp.
Further he was a part of the revolt in a prison where Americans were killed.
He deserves no rights. They both are traitors.
Then by all means, let's line them up and shoot them. That is exactly what Jesus would have done.
I am done with this thread.
Yes Streak and I agree with you there. Steves brought up Yaser as an example of American's being denied their right to Habeas.
I agree that all people deserve humane treatment. I dont think we should beat them, waterboarding, electricity, etc.
But I dont think execution is inhumane for a traitor that cost us the lives of American Soldiers and to be honest friends of mine.
I literally knew people at that prison those 2 assholes were at. I knew about Walker by not Yaser.
They deserve a humane death.
So streak, 2 traitors who cost the lives of American Soldiers deserve what? A trial and life in jail?
Tell me your solution to this?
Bush might not be the best but I think he was right at least in this case.
Paul in the Book of Romans says that the government is a sword to be used against evil. We should not fear the sword if we are not evil.
These men are evil.
Sorry if this upsets you, but you didnt lose friends because of those traitors. They are Unlawful Combatants and traitors. According to the Law traitors are given a tribunal and then death if found guilty.
Then get your own goddamned blog.
Post a Comment