Mixing war and religion?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Popmartijn

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
32,861
Location
Netherlands
Hello,

I heard about this on the news this morning and now I also found an article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/27/sprj.irq.fasting.ap/index.html):

House calls for day of prayer and fasting in time of war
Critic says religion should not be injected into war
Thursday, March 27, 2003 Posted: 4:48 PM EST (2148 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House passed a resolution Thursday calling for a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.

The resolution, passed 346-49, says Americans should use the day of prayer "to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation."

Under the resolution, President Bush would issue a proclamation designating a specific day as a day of "humility, prayer and fasting."

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said officials there had not looked at the resolution but "the president believes that faith and prayer are important and frequently references the importance of praying for American troops and for freedom around the world."

A similar resolution approved on March 17 said it was the sense of the Senate that that day should be a national day of prayer and fasting.

During Wednesday's House debate, some lawmakers expressed concern about the measure.

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a presidential hopeful and an opponent of the war in Iraq, said the resolution "may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion."

***

I agree with this critic here. Time and time again president Bush has said that he wanted a war against the Iraqi regime, against Saddam Hussein. He said the war was not against the Iraqi (civilian) people or the islam. Yet, at this point in the war the House wants to emphasis the Christian values of the USA by having a day devoted to praying and fasting. Personally, I think it sends a dangerous signal to the islamic world at a moment that tension is high.

C ya!

Marty
 
Prayer and fasting are found in many religions - not just Christianity. Based on the descriptions you have given, it appears to be a call for introspection, not a call to faith in Jesus Christ.

I think we could all you time to evaluate our own words, actions and values.
 
nbcrusader said:
Prayer and fasting are found in many religions - not just Christianity. Based on the descriptions you have given, it appears to be a call for introspection, not a call to faith in Jesus Christ.

But the resolution does specifically call for prayer which isn't just about introspection and which also excludes people of no religious faith.

I also don't really understand why Congress should need to pass a resolution urging citizens to fast and pray. Surely that's a matter of personal conscience?
 
I really don't know what to say. I thought we had a seperation of Church and State, was I mistaken?

I will continue to pray for the safety of the people in Iraq, Americans and Iraquis alike, but never will I bring God into this war.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
But the resolution does specifically call for prayer which isn't just about introspection and which also excludes people of no religious faith.

I see no effort by the government to control, dictate or suggest whom you pray to or what you pray about. I don't see religious faith as a necessary prerequisite to prayer.
 
I've been fasting and praying independent of what my government says about such matters. I happen to be a practicing Catholic, and it's Lent, a time for penance. I'd be praying if the president or my Congressman were atheists, agnostics deists or Zoroastrians.
 
It does, however, establish (or at least propose) a religious activity.

If I wanted my lawmakers telling me how to pray or practice my religion, I'd have moved to Iran, okay?
 
nbcrusader said:
I see no effort by the government to control, dictate or suggest whom you pray to or what you pray about. I don't see religious faith as a necessary prerequisite to prayer.

No, they aren't dictating what you should pray about, but I still don't understand why the government needs to urge citizens to pray - as I said before, I think prayer and religious faith are matters for each individual to decide and I don't think anyone needs the government to remind them to pray.

Also, I don't really see how you an individual can pray if they don't have any religious faith, can you explain that, please? Besides, this resolution urges people to "seek guidance from God" which certainly isn't something a person without religious faith would do.
 
paxetaurora said:
It does, however, establish (or at least propose) a religious activity.

If I wanted my lawmakers telling me how to pray or practice my religion, I'd have moved to Iran, okay?

It suggests personal introspection. A perfectly healthy suggestions. It can easily be ignored. My guess many will.

I agree with you wholeheartedly - if lawmakers tell me how to pray or practice religion - that is going too far.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


No, they aren't dictating what you should pray about, but I still don't understand why the government needs to urge citizens to pray - as I said before, I think prayer and religious faith are matters for each individual to decide and I don't think anyone needs the government to remind them to pray.

The government suggest all types of things for its citizens. I remember the constant stream of commercials from years ago suggesting that you write to an address in Pueblo Colorado. You could obtain suggestions for all sorts of activities, behaviors or otherwise personal matters.

FizzingWhizzbees said:
Also, I don't really see how you an individual can pray if they don't have any religious faith, can you explain that, please? Besides, this resolution urges people to "seek guidance from God" which certainly isn't something a person without religious faith would do.

Prayer of those without religious faith may look different, but I think all people have some sort of spiritual void (the "God shaped hole" to quote a favorite band). What they fill it with varies. I could be simply looking to inner stregth, nature, space aliens, crystals, etc.

I could just see the angry furor if "God" was replaced with "Jesus Christ". God is defined in so many ways in this country that it is a fairly generic reference.

The resolution can be easily ignored. It may, however, touch the nerve of issues that many individuals don't want to address.
 
It suggests personal introspection. A perfectly healthy suggestions. It can easily be ignored. My guess many will.

It does not suggest personal introspection. It said to seek guidance from God. How does that suggest personal introspection. Many don't believe in God. A healty suggestion? Yes for those of who already pray, but then what's the point of this resolution to begin with. Then the next question is where's the prayer in school, what about the "One nation under God" that was considered unconstitutional. They keep contradicting themselves.
 
nbcrusader said:
The government suggest all types of things for its citizens. I remember the constant stream of commercials from years ago suggesting that you write to an address in Pueblo Colorado. You could obtain suggestions for all sorts of activities, behaviors or otherwise personal matters.


Right, but I don't think the government's health advisors recommending that people eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day is in the same league as Congress advising citizens to pray! Doesn't the United States have very strict guidelines on the division between state and religion? Surely then Congress can't presume to advise people on a matter of religious faith.

Prayer of those without religious faith may look different, but I think all people have some sort of spiritual void (the "God shaped hole" to quote a favorite band). What they fill it with varies. I could be simply looking to inner stregth, nature, space aliens, crystals, etc.


But again, the resolution specifically calls on people to "seek guidance from God" - even if your definition of prayer is correct, it can't be the same as the definition of prayer used by Congress when they specifically advice people to pray to God, not to aliens or crystals, etc!
 
It's popular to use religion in politics these days. It's the newest fad. Personally, I think it is insulting that our politicians are using religion like this, particularly considering how many religions are steadfastly against this war. But we can seemingly brush them aside as "irrelevant."

Melon
 
Watching Mosaic today (5 middle eastern countries news shows) they all showed the sound-bite from Bush after 9/11. He said, "we will crusade against the terrorist." Pretty bad choice of words for missle eastern diplomacy. Then they showed the Clerics inviting a fatwa against the crusading, invading infidels.

Not a good thing for us.
 
There is a saying that religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Well, sometimes it is the first, second and last and only tactic used by people who can not make sound argument for their actions.

Well, I am pleased that 49 had the backbone to vote against, God, mother, and apple pie.
 
deep said:
There is a saying that religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Well, sometimes it is the first, second and last and only tactic used by people who can not make sound argument for their actions.

Well, I am pleased that 49 had the backbone to vote against, God, mother, and apple pie.

Please, the saying is that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I find your paraphrase offensive to people of faith.
 
nbcrusader said:


Please, the saying is that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I find your paraphrase offensive to people of faith.

:up:
 
nbcrusader,
I have no offense to your Views. I'm a Christian, tho not in a mainstream sense, but I don't want my gov't declaring anything such as prayer ect. in any way. That is why I want B out in 2004. I think this is the last defense of the caucasian era.
Make as many laws as possible. Luckily the Hispanics, who will overtake the WASP's in a few years are Christian may not fight the laws.
I look to our other citizens that are of other faiths or no faiths.
 
And I want our money changed too....Get Rid of "In God We Trust".

I mean really, how can the governement print that stuff on the money. I thought there was separation of church and state. ANd no more swearing on the bible when we go to court. That is also and endorsement of religion.
 
Dreadsox said:
And I want our money changed too....Get Rid of "In God We Trust".

I mean really, how can the governement print that stuff on the money. I thought there was separation of church and state. ANd no more swearing on the bible when we go to court. That is also and endorsement of religion.

Aww Dread, these have been argued so many times before. The sarcasm is getting old. It's getting a litle redundant in here. I do have a new channel to explore.

OK, how do you reconcile your religion with the war? A learning experience for us all. Not what side your on but a personal expression of what you've been saying in this forum and our religious beliefs. This is not off topic and may stop the Bullshit.

edited to say
Please let's get some positive things out of this.
 
Last edited:
Scarletwine said:


Aww Dread, these have been argued so many times before. The sarcasm is getting old. It's getting a litle redundant in here.

I am fine with my religion thanks for your concern.

There are many things I find redundant in here, however, I won't list them here. Thanks for the lecture.:huh:
 
Last edited:
Oh My Goodness....Abraham Lincoln called for a day of Fasting and Prayer in 1863.

National Day of Fasting Proclaimed
Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1863



Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's son Robert, introduced this Resolution in the Senate on March 2, 1863. The Resolution asked President Lincoln to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting. The resolution was adopted on March 3 and signed by Lincoln on March 30.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.

And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God..We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessingswere produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the thirtieth day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine preaching, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this theirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

BY THE PRESIDENT: ALRAHAM lINCOLN
WILLIAM SEWARD, SECRETARY OF STATE
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:

Please, the saying is that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I find your paraphrase offensive to people of faith.

Nbcrusader,

You are right about the saying.
I still think that a scoundrel will use religion in the same way that he will use patriotism.
A patriotic person should not be offended at the saying and religious people should not be offended at what I wrote.
I am offended seeing phony patriotism and religion used for political reasons.

Many people, yourself included (I believe) pray for these things on a daily basis. Bringing politics into it only cheapens it.
 
Dread,

When you mentioned the money.

I thought of Lincoln, too.

He put ?In God We Trust? on the currency, if I am not mistaken. After the war it came off.

It was put back on during the McCarthy era.

Most of us in this forum who believe in God, would admit that god is Jesus.

Everything I can remember being taught about Jesus leads me to believe he would not like that motto on the currency. I seem to remember a story about how a Publican tried to trick Jesus, I think you know the story, it ends with ?render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar?s


Btw, to paraphrase L. Benson ?W is no Lincoln?
 
I am about to embark on research this weekend to see how many Presidents during times of war have signed similar Proclamations. I am curious how common it is/was.

Peace
 
Scarletwine said:

OK, how do you reconcile your religion with the war? edited to say
Please let's get some positive things out of this.
I know this wasn't asked of me, butI'll give my answer anyway. I justify this war in a few ways:

1)Many times in the Bible, God told the Israelites to conquer this nation or that nation. He never told the Israelites to conquer nations that weren't evil. Many times, God would say something to the effect of "If you don't, they will rise up and do "so and so" to you." So you see, God told Israel to destroy those nations because he sees in the future and knows what those nations would do to Israel if Israel didn't do something about it. Saddam is an evil tyrant who is trying to create chemical weapons, and probably already has them. Who does he want to sue them on, and who will he sue them on first chance he gets? You got it - America.

2)This war is partially a war of compassion; America will be liberating the Iraqi people from years and years of torture, abuse and slaughter by their evil ruler. That is definitely a "God" thing.

3)Jesus NEVER EVER said one thing against war. Not once.
 
"You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:38

"You have heard it said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy".
But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons
of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
For if you love those who love you , what reward have you? Do not the tax gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" Matthew 5:43-48

When Jesus spoke these words they were to an audience that lived their lives by violence and in a world of violence. The only law they knew was that of tooth and talon. Jesus said "no more, for those who are to be children of God." Vengeance will belong to the Lord Himself and not in the hands of the children of God.

This is the only aspect of living that sets apart a Christian from the rest of the world, other than religious belief. For 3000 years the people of God waged war against its neighbors for varying reasons, now Jesus says "No more." The children of God were once feared throughout the land for their fierceness in battle. Now, we are to be known as peacemakers. Jesus said ;

" Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God." Matthew 5:9

In the Old Testament those who waged war in God's name were called His children, but now God has turned the corner and it is now those who wage peace that are His children. How is this so? In the Old Testament, salvation was by works, in the New Testament it becomes a work of grace. In the Old Testament we see the institution of slavery practiced and accepted. In the New Testament, we find that all people are equal in the sight of God. The word "testament" means "agreement", God establishes a "New Agreement" with us through Jesus Christ. We like the part about salvation through grace and not through works ( Ephesians 2:8). We are satisfied with the section that there are no divisions or classes in the eyes of God (Galatians 3:28). But we rebel and protest the part of our "New Agreement" with God over turning the other cheek and allowing ourselves to be wronged. At this point the Christian Church draws the line and inserts the "Just War" theory.

In theological circles, the Sermon on the Mount has been called "the hard sayings of Jesus." What they are referring to is not that they are hard to interpret...but hard to practice. Because something is difficult, does that mean it is to be abandoned? Jesus promised us that the road to discipleship would be very difficult and that we are to pause for thought before we undertake such a journey (Luke 14:27). We are warned that the disciple, in the last days, would be persecuted, hated and killed. Who will be hated and killed? The believing Christian or the practicing Christian? The devil has no fear of what you believe, only what you do. For, unbelievers see what you do (not what you believe) and it is what you do that is the bold witness for Christ.

Do we believe our going to Church on Sundays and paying a tithe is what Jesus meant when He said we must "bear His cross." To the contemporary Church, discipleship is attending Bible study in an air conditioned building, on a padded pew, among like minded people for one hour a week. However, discipleship is following the teachings of Jesus the Messiah, even if His teachings are difficult.

Jesus called us to be peacemakers, and as such we shall be called "the Children of God. What do we think a peacemaker is if it is not one who "makes peace?" He called us to be "meek", and meekness is a "strength under control," and as such we shall be inheritors of the earth. He asks us to return kindness for violence, and to suffer wrong, to turn the other cheek. In other words, Jesus is saying the the Children of God will be unlike all the other people on the face of the earth. They shall be a portrayal of the Kingdom of God.

The Just War proponents have made violence a part and parcel of Christian discipleship in direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. When pressed on this point they respond by saying "Jesus surely could not mean that we literally turn the other cheek, it was only a metaphor." To which we respond, "Is salvation by grace also a metaphor?" Or, in John 3:16 where God says He loves all the people of the world...is this a metaphor? Why is it every time we are faced with a command we do not like, it becomes a metaphor?

The Sermon on the Mount is the greatest stumbling block to all of the Just War theorists. Almost exclusively, Just War proponents base their arguments on the Old Testament (Ambrose, Augustine, Calvin) and/or philosophy (Aquinas), while avoiding the New Testament. When ask, "how do you reconcile institutionalized violence with Sermon on the Mount?" The answer given is that "one may kill an enemy while still loving that enemy in your heart, thus fulfilling the commands of the Sermon on the Mount." Does one really think that is what Jesus had in mind when He spoke to establish the ground rules for discipleship? When Jesus died on the cross at Calvary, does one believe it was to establish a people of God that would be as exactly as they were before He came? Did God send His Son to suffer and die in order to bring children to Him who were identical to the unbeliever in every way except what he/she believes in the hidden recess of the heart?

For three hundred years after the death of Christ, the Christian Church practiced the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and were pacifistic. They refused to fight in any and all wars. For their belief and practice they were persecuted and denied privileges by their government. Augustine put an end to Christian pacifism when he established the idea of the "Just War". In doing so, the Just War became a part of Christian discipleship and a demonstration of Christian love. Today, nearly universally, the Christian Church follows the way of the "eye for and eye", and a "tooth for a tooth," and as such, in this matter, they are no different than the children of darkness.
 
Back
Top Bottom