|
| |
|
Monday, October 14, 2002 |
|
|
The statement from Columbia Theological Seminary in the previous entry included this section, which summarizes and expresses much of the opposition I feel to the "rush to action" that the Bush crew seems to hell bent on pursuing.
"Finally, pursuing the security of persons in the United States at the expense of basic human freedoms, including the right to life of those who have done nothing to provoke attack, is not only an unreasonable and unwise goal, but has the potential to stand in conflict with the good news of a gospel made manifest in Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Our security does not and cannot rest in our own efforts; even our best efforts, for all such efforts are doomed to failure. Instead, our security rests in the hands of a God strong enough to defeat death and loving enough to return to those who condemned him, offering salvation instead of condemnation. We asked ourselves, "Can we gain the type of security our national administration suggests it can deliver to us through war?" And if so, ought we desire it? We believe that the answers to both questions are No. "
The thing that bothers me, and seems to bother the writers of the section quoted above, is that we are wagering quite a bit of assured suffering and death on the "theories" of how we think things will play out, if this or if that. Of course, to the proponents of "quick military pre-emptive action", these costs do not seem to bother them quite enough. After all, the lives we are talking about here are lives in Iraq. This is disgusting to me how so many in this "Christian nation" so quickly and easily jump on the bandwagon and advocate movin' on in and kickin' some butt.
7:29:41 PM 
|
|
|
Dale,
Columbia Theological Seminary has issued a statement of testimony about the war on Iraq. They asked that it be diseminated widely so I have posted it on my blog in the following entry. Thought I would mention it since I believe your blog gets a bit more attention than my fledgling efforts manage. I hope you will consider mentioning it.
<http://www.riviere.ws/mt/fr/archives/000047.html#000047>;
Peace,
J. Kenneth Riviere
JoKeR
6:57:23 PM
|
|
We are assured of a World Series where the participants have been collectively absent for at least 54 years (the Angels have never made it before in their 41 year history, and the Giants have not been there in 13 years, the Cardinals in 15, for a whopping minimum of 54. The last time that the Series has had two teams , neither of whom had been there in the previous decade was in 1986, when the Mets and Red Sox met (Mets had been absent since 1973, and the Red Sox since 1975). Prior to that, it was 1984, when the Padres (first time in their 15 year history at that time, and the Tigers, since 1968). 1982 saw the Cardinals back for the first time since 1968, against the Brewers, first trip in their 13 year history which began as the Seatlle Pilots. 1980 pitted the Phillies (first trip in 30 years) against the Royals (first time in their 11 year history). Before that, you gotta go back to 1948 (mainly because the Yankees were present in just about all of them back to then) and the Braves of Boston (not since 1914) and the Cleveland Indians (not since 1920). Before that, only one other: 1929 when the A's of Philadelphia were back after 15 years, and the Cubs for the first time since 1918. That's it. This will be the 7th Series like that (4 of them in the 80's!). Just thought you ought to know how rare this is.
12:26:11 AM
|
|
| |
