Those terms are being used more and more. I have been labeled both for simply handing out a Bible at a shopping mall. This is a unsettling experience when someone says to you "keep your right wing stuff to yourself" Why am I right wing? In China if your church is not approved by the government and your preaching is not approved by the government you are 'extremist' Christian. But in China you go to prison for that. When I see those terms used I get perplexed because I have been called that by people. I really don't know why carrying a Bible would link me to those groups. Honest. What is going on that I don't understand. What are the preceptions about those who would try to give a Bible to someone or talk to someone about Jesus Christ? If I came up to you unawares and engaged you in religious discussion would you go away thinking I might be apart of those groups? Could there be a day coming when a Christian cannot legally discuss religion in public? I am not sure about all of that.
I thought "extreme" meant use of force. Btw, I am very proud of all the many good things my parents have done as Christians. But I would be embarrassed and disillusioned if they went to the Mall and handed out Bibles. They would never do that, I think they are above it. They are out to help people, not annoy them.
Not unless you preach FaLunGong, which is a cult. I seriously doubt China nowadays is persecuting any Christians who simply mind their biblical teaching and practicing. As long as you don't instigate or try to conspire to overthrow the government, CCP will leave you alone.
I'm not saying that at all but I believe the standard for war shouldn't be cultural at all because culture and modernity are not objective and inherently problematic. Its not that we should be perfectly modern before we declare a war for modernity its that others might feel fine attacking us based on their view of our culture. War should be about self-defense and not advancing culture. I agree that Wahabism seems hopelessly backward and that Al Qaeda are adherents of Wahabism but I'm not supporting attacking Al Qaeda because they are Wahabists I support attacking Al Qaeda because they attacked us.
I wasn't saying you were right wing, or a christian extremist. I was talking about the terrorist groups operatin in the U.S. Any group that uses terrorism on abortion clinics, doctors, and law enforcement because of their belief of the christian religion, would be Christian extremists. Those kinds of attacks do happen. Tim McVeigh and his kind have blown up federal buildings and are right wing extremists as are most militia. So I used that term as well. Some groups are both extremely right wing, and christian extremists. I believe I used accurate terms to describe a terrorist threat in the U.S. Being a Christian myself I hardly believe that all Christians are right wing, or terrorists.
The CCP is very paranoid about religion and often cannot separate the political from the spiritual. The CCP definition of instigate or conspire to overthrow the government is very wide which is why churches who don't register with the government are banned in the PRC even though they don't want to overthrow the CCP but don't want to submit to secular authority.
Understood and its not that your viewpoint doesn't make sense, it just seems incomplete. Do we not move to help others unless we are attacked (in the case of genocide for example), or do we not propagate our belief in inherent universal rights? Do we in the west have these universal rights and others do not? I think that's a tenuous position and think if we believe it for us then by definition should believe its for others as well (hence 'universal'). To believe they have those rights but fail to act seems more than hypocritical but rather an abandonment of our moral responsibility.
I think it's very possible and ironical that if US had gone to a war with Iraq purely for some good natured humanitarian cause*, e.g., establishing a democracy by overthrowing Saddam's tyrannical regime, many who oppose the (current) war would have probably supported it, while many who support the war would have opposed it. *To show that, US-led coalition would have to do the following: 1) Maintain civic order and provide security to Iraqi people after Saddam is toppled. It will require troops not act paranoically when facing "perceived dangerous" situations, as evident in all-too-often "shoot first, ask later", and heavy-handedness in searching for insurgents in residential area. Even if this means some inevitable casualties for US troops initially, it will win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis who have suffered enough from Saddam and would welcome a refreshing start, and benefit US troops in the long run. 2) Protect not only the oil fields, but all properties considered vitally important to Iraqis. This essentially demonstrates the war is not about oil. 3) Treat captured prisoners humanly. Show them torture and abuse are not in the tenets of US military. This in turn helps 1). 4) Train Iraqi police effectively to maintain order (we have been doing this, but not sufficiently and not nearly effectively). 5) Once a fair general election is over, acknowledge Iraq is sovereign county and get the hell out. (An option is to leave only a small portion of US troops there to assist the new government just in case and bring the rest back home. But eventually shall have no military presence there at all.) 1) won't be easy since US military train recruits into nothing but killing machines, but still doable. 2) is only a policy issue, so a matter of implementing it. 3) Policy plus training, but not hard to do. 4) A matter of trust. May sound simple, but could be tough. 5) Again a policy issue. To quickly stablize a post-war country you just conquered, you need to do your utmost to win as many as possible friends and sympathizers while reduce your foes to the minimum in that country. Unfortunately, with the long-held arrogance of US military superiority mindset that force solves everything, even if with all the good intent, a war like this would hardly achieve its goal.
I understand, I have given lots of Bibles to people. But I do understand the annoying way and the harrassing way. Since you mentioned it, the manager of the local shopping mall is a friend. She has welcomed me to talk to the teenagers who get in trouble with their security people on the weekends. Whatever her motive it was good for me to talk to kids about their problems and share the Bible with anyone that was interested. I never thought about annoying anyone since I really respect those I talk to. I always ask for permission before I strike up even a conversation and I always make my intentions clear. I don't think giving a Bible to someone who shows interest is what people should think of when you say 'right wing militia' or 'extreme Christian'- Unless you mean extreme love and kindness.
Thanks, I think I knew you were talking about 'fringe' groups but I must admit I have been classified there... maybe I am, but I never have been to one of their meetings or websites etc. Just troubles me to be even put in the boat with Jerry Farwell. Not because he is bad, but because he is often seen as representing the view of all 'Bible belt Christians'- can't say that is me.
I have followed their work for years. They risk their lives to help the families of Christians who are imprisoned around the world. They ARE extreme. They have gone to jail to bring clothing and food to Christian families who have husbands or parents in jail. As far as Christian love goes they are very extreme. They carry no guns, just compassion and practical assistance. Their founder Richard Wurmbrand spent 13.5 yrs in a prison in communist Romania where he was tortured because he was a pastor and would not renounce his faith. He dedicated his life upon his release to helping the families of Christians who were imprisoned or killed for their Christian faith. I am grateful to support their efforts.
That's a very insightful point. For myself, I have to admit that I definitely would have opposed the war. As it was - with the presumed existence of WMDs, I supported it.
I am feeling the discussion like this is going to derail current thread. Why don't you start a thread like "China is still persecuting Christians for no good reasons". I am sure it'll be a hot topic and many China bashers and oversea Chinese would offer their opinions.
What you're proposing is the Wilsonian, I guess now it would be called Bushist, idea of forcefully promoting our values. While I like our values of freedom and democracy I'm not sure that we should be forcing them onto others. To me that's a recipe for never ending war as its human nature to not like it when someone comes in and tells you your values are wrong and worse if they back that up with the point of a gun. I agree that genocide and things like that are bad but I'm skeptical of whether the US should be country that goes around solving everyone's problems. I personally would rather see a more empowered UN with its own humanitarian military force too deal with issues like that and only when it was too large for them to handle to call in an international force. The problem with moral responsibility is everyone thinks their morals are right but things get messy when you feel a responsibility to force that on others. Even in the US we can't agree on whether abortion, homosexuality, stem cells and any number of things are moral and every side is upset when the government imposes morality in a way that they don't agree to. If we can't even agree on issues like that how successfully are we going to be when we start imposes our moral responsibility on countries and cultures that don't accept our views particularly when those are backed up by military force? That doesn't mean we can't talk about our values or advocate them through other ways but going to war to push them on others that seems ultimately self defeating since others will resent it but also feel that war is justification for them to force their values on us.
I opposed the war because I thought that the claims of Iraq being a threat were highly speculative and that it wasn't worth the potential costs of a quagmire, what we have now. If it was fought solely on forcing democracy on Iraq I would've opposed it also.
I think you are too sophisticated to believe Bushism equates Wilsonism. What do you think why lots of soccer moms supported the war? OK, they (soccer moms) may worry Saddam might drop bombs on their kids' soccer fields, but what they really want are steady drops in gas prices so that they can spend less driving their gas-guzzling SUVs. Now that gas prices have not gone down as a result the Iraqi war, they start to feel for others' sons and daughters who have not the luxury of playing soccer in war time, hence the decline of support for the war.
Wnes; I believe that economics played a role in this war but I don't believe it was the primary factor. As for Bushism whether you can consider it being similar to Wilsonian I think history will record it as being intended to be that way going by GW Bush's speeches.
