Supporting WHICH troops???

[colmurph]

The Patriot Act has trashed the bill of rights. We aren't any safer but our freedoms have been eroded by the majority who would rather give up freedom for a flase sense of security than take any action to protect themselves.

[colmurph]

The Patriot Act has trashed the bill of rights. We aren't any safer but our freedoms have been eroded by the majority who would rather give up freedom for a flase sense of security than take any action to protect themselves.

[blues clues]

Ben Franklin said to give up ones rights for security deserdes nether.
razz

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by colmurph The Patriot Act has trashed the bill of rights. We aren't any safer but our freedoms have been eroded by the majority who would rather give up freedom for a flase sense of security than take any action to protect themselves.

My reason for saying that was to certain folks' attention to that fact... I'm pretty sure the Act is thought of as being a "liberal" issue to be against.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK

My reason for saying that was to certain folks' attention to that fact... I'm pretty sure the Act is thought of as being a "liberal" issue to be against.

What....pray tell does any of this crap have to with the original subject matter of this post???

Can we please stick to THAT instead of rambling on and on about unrelated topics!

[SuperScout]

"Liberals, Democrats and others on the left frequently state that they 'support the troops,'?" syndicated columnist Dennis Prager writes.

"For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them," Mr. Prager said.

"Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

"In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term 'support the troops.' Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could 'support the troops' mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

"But most of the left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The left's message is this: 'You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you.'"

[BLUEHAWK]

Let us join the Amen circle...

[Gimpy]

The National Council of Churches disagrees with your "assesment"!

###START###

National Council of Churches USA
July 4, 2005

This year our nation is at war as we observe the 4th of July, a day that honors those founders who spoke out for independence from tyranny. Today in Iraq a cruel dictator has been deposed, yet the suffering of the Iraqi people continues. Mandated elections have been held, yet the future of Iraq remains as uncertain as ever.

Day by day the cost of this war for the United States, for Iraq, for peace grows clearer. No weapons of mass destruction have been found; no link to the attacks on September 11, 2001 has been shown. It has become clear that the rationale for invasion was at best a tragic mistake, at worst a clever deception.


As people of faith, we believe in the transcendent sovereignty and love of God for creation, and that the responsibility of human beings is thus to pursue justice and peace for all. We also believe that, as the biblical prophets of old, who in faithfulness to God spoke out to a people and a nation they loved, in humility before God we too are to speak to a land and people we love. As religious leaders we invite others who share our affections and dismay to recognize the time has come to speak out.

The time has come to say:

- NO to leaders who have sent many honorable sons and daughters to fight a dishonorable war;


- NO to the violence that has cost over seventeen hundred American lives, left thousands grievously injured, and killed untold numbers of Iraqis whose deaths we are unwilling to acknowledge or count;

- NO to the abuse of prisoners that has shamed our nation and damaged our reputation throughout the world;

- NO to the price tag for this war that has rendered our federal budget incapable of adequately caring for the poorest of our own citizens; and,

- NO to theologies that demonize other nations and religions while arrogantly claiming righteousness for ourselves as if we share no complicity in human evil.

The time has come to say:

- YES to foreign policies that seek justice rather than domination, compassion rather than control;

- YES to an early fixed timetable for the withdrawal of United States troops and the establishment of a credible multinational peacekeeping force;

- YES to the honoring of human rights even for our enemies and for a restoration of our reputation as a people committed to the rule of law;

- YES to spending and taxing priorities that put the poor first, providing health care, housing, employment, and quality education for all, not just the few; and,

- YES to a restoration of truth telling in the public square and to ?last resort? rather than ?first strike? as the criterion for the use of force to restrain evil.

On the day we celebrate our freedom, we acknowledge that the freedom promised in the toppling of a dictator has been replaced by the humiliation of occupation and the violence of a civil war. The sacrifice of brave men and women has been used to serve policies that have diminished our nation?s prestige and our capacity to be agents of justice in the world.

It is time to speak out that this 4th of July will celebrate the best ideals of our nation for our sake and for the sake of the world.

_____

[Arrow]

Largest coalition of leftwing religious denominations in the United States
Has long record of financial support for Communist regimes
Remains faithful ally of Communist Cuba
Reserves criticism on moral issues for Israel and the United States
Makes common cause with environmentalist radicals
Masks leftist politics in faith-based declarations

Earlier this month, the National Council of Churches condemned Israel ? a nation plagued in recent years by an epidemic of Palestinian suicide bombings aimed at civilians ? for having ?established hundreds upon hundreds of checkpoints, roadblocks, and gates across the Occupied Territories, making daily life and travel extremely difficult for ordinary Palestinians.? Proclaiming that ?[s]tereotypes of all Palestinians as terrorists must be broken,? the Council explained that ?[t]he crushing burden of Israel?s occupation of Palestinian territory contributes to deep anger and violent resistance, which contributes to fear throughout Israeli society.? The Council lamented that while ?[a]t least half of the Palestinian people live in poverty, . . . too many Israelis have little or no knowledge of the human rights abuses experienced by Palestinians.?

In making the these statements, the National Council of Churches offered neither social nor historical context. For example, it did not mention that fully 70 percent of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza approve of the murder of Jews via suicide bombings; that there is no trace of an Arab peace movement urging the cessation of such terror attacks (a stark contrast to Israel, where the movement demanding concessions to Arabs in the name of peace is a formidable political force); that Palestinians in Israel enjoy more civil and human rights than their counterparts in any Arab nation on earth; that Israel came to occupy the West Bank and Gaza not as a result of expansionist impulses, but rather because of its victory in the 1967 war that was ignited when Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria and Jordan; that in 1973, yet another coalition of Arab armies attacked Israel and were defeated; and that when Egypt (the spearhead of that 1973 assault) became the lone nation to agree to a formal peace with Israel, it was rewarded by Israel with the return of the entire captured Sinai with all its oil riches.

The foregoing facts notwithstanding, the National Council of Churches betrays no recognition of the fact that Israel has demonstrated a remarkable willingness to negotiate peace with, and relinquish land to, even defeated aggressors who have previously demonstrated a burning desire to destroy the Jewish state. ?[i]t is clear,? maintains the Council, that ?the overriding problem is Israel?s continuing occupation of Palestinian territory.? The Council?s critical stance on Israel is mirrored by its history of consistently opposing U.S. policies as well. These two nations are singled out for rebuke by the Council with greater frequency than any others.

Since its founding in 1950, the New York City-based National Council of Churches (NCC) has remained faithful to the legacy of its predecessor, the Communist front-group known as the Federal Council of Churches, which the NCC absorbed in 1950. At one time an unabashed apostle of the Communist cause, the NCC has today recast itself as a leading representative of the so-called religious Left. Adhering to what it has described as ?liberation theology??that is, Marxist ideology disguised as Christianity?the NCC lays claim to a membership of 36 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Christian denominations, and some 50 million members in over 140,000 congregations.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the NCC has soft-pedaled its radical message, dressing up its demands for global collectivization and its rejection of democratic capitalism in the garb of religious teachings. Yet the organization?s history suggests that it was?and remains?a devout backer of a gallery of socialist governments. In the 1950s and 1960s, under cover of charity, the NCC provided financial succor to the Communist regimes in Yugoslavia and Poland, funneling money to both through its relief agency, the Church World Service. In the 1970s, working with its Geneva-based parent organization, the World Council of Churches, the NCC supplied financial support for Soviet-sponsored incursions into Africa, aiding the terrorist rampages of Communist guerrillas in Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and Angola.

As one of the leading contributors to the Program to Combat Racism (a program created in 1939 by the NCC-parent group, the World Council of Churches, and discontinued in 1996), the NCC played a central role in subsidizing revolutionary Communist movements in the Third World. Sensitive to the controversy which over the years has enveloped the Program to Combat Racism (PCR), the WCC has consistently declined to divulge both the contributors to, and the recipients of, the program. The WCC has gone so far as to establish an independent budget, the Special Fund to Combat Racism, in order to conceal details about the funding of the program. Despite these efforts, the WCC has not been entirely successful in obscuring the PCR?s paper trail. An August 1982 report by Reader?s Digest revealed that during the 1970s the PCR disbursed over $5 million to some 130 organizations in 30 countries. While the WCC held fast to the claim that the funds were directed solely toward those organizations dedicated to fighting racism, the facts suggested otherwise. According to the Reader?s Digest report, more than half of the money that went to the PCR wound up in the hands of Communist guerrillas. The report further traced PCR funds to a series of Communist rampages in Africa. During the 1970s, over $78,000 went to Cuba?s Soviet-sponsored MPLA to foment Communist revolution in Angola; some $120,000 went to the Marxist FRELIMO in Mozambique; and another $832,000 to Namibia?s Communist regime, the SWAPO; another grant, for $108,000, was funneled to the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), a Communist guerrilla force whose campaign of indiscriminate terror claimed the lives of 207 white civilians, 1,721 blacks, and nine missionaries as well as their children. In the face of this grim evidence, PCR administrators?many of whom were culled from the ranks of the NCC?continued to push the line that, rather than bankrolling Communist death squads, the organization was simply supporting ?liberation movements.? From this position the WCC has never wavered. In an archival overview of the PRC, published in 2004, the WCC dusted off its claim that ?the main aim of the PCR is to define, propose and carry out ecumenical policies and programs that substantially contribute to the liberation of the victims of racism.?

Other beneficiaries of the NCC?s leftist philanthropy included El Salvador?s Sandinista guerrillas. Using the Evangelical Committee for Aid to Development (CEPAD), an organization established to distribute the charity donations collected by U.S. churches in Latin America?and whose leadership openly professed solidarity with the Sandinistas? Marxist aims?the NCC made common cause with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, contributing nearly $400,000 to the Sandinista Party between 1981 and 1983. Documents seized from El Salvador?s guerrillas in 1983 revealed yet another Communist group on the take from the NCC?s collection plate.

Another of the NCC?s leftist faith-based initiatives is support for Communist Cuba. Having pushed for the United States to normalize relations with the Castro regime since 1968, the NCC throughout the Cold War pressed its considerable authority on moral issues into the service of whitewashing the hard-line regime?s record of oppression. In 1977, after heading a delegation of American church officials to Cuba, the Methodist bishop James Armstrong, who would be elected NCC president the following year, issued a report that may justifiably be described as supportive of the murderous dictatorship. ?There is a significant difference,? Armstrong insisted, ?between situations where people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to perpetuate inequities, as in Chile and Brazil, for example, and situations were people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to remove inequities, as in Cuba.?

On the rare occasions that the NCC was unforthcoming with a public rationalization for Communist repression, it communicated its support through silence. For example, despite its oft-declared commitment to human rights, the NCC could find little to say about the ascension to power of Ethiopia?s Marxist government, which left 10,000 dead and shuttered 200 churches. Likewise, on the matter of the Soviet Union?s 1978 invasion of Afghanistan, the NCC kept conspicuously mum.

Not until the Soviet Union?s collapse did the NCC see it fit to weigh in on the subject of Communist oppression. In 1993, Joan Brown Campbell, a former NCC General Secretary, made a striking admission. Acknowledging that the NCC had failed to challenge the brutality of Communist rule, she explained, ?We did not understand the depth of the suffering of Christians under Communism. And we failed to really cry out under the Communist oppression.?

Campbell?s comments, however, did not prompt the NCC to withdraw its support for Communist totalitarianism. On the contrary, to this day the NCC remains an unwavering ally of the Cuban government. Still pressing for the lifting of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, the NCC continues to evince scant concern for the plight of victims of the Castro regime. On occasion, the NCC has even turned against them. No sooner had the NCC used its charity arm, the Church World Service, to establish a Cuban Refugee Emergency Center in Miami, than it soured on the center. The reason was that Cuban refugees had regularly denounced the Cuban government?an outcry that was intolerable to the NCC?s Castro-friendly executives. Kenneth Lloyd, the author of a history of the NCC called From Mainline to Sideline: The Social Witness of the National Council of Churches, noted that one NCC declaration condemned the anti-Castro recriminations of the refugees because they ?abetted our government?s effort to discredit Cuba? and ?encouraged humanitarian sentiment that generated hostile attitudes toward Cuba among U.S. congregations.?

In January of 2000, eager to affirm its Castroite sympathies, the NCC forced itself into the controversy over the fate of Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez, becoming one of the loudest voices demanding that the boy be sent back to Cuba. Most recently, in January of 2004, the NCC dispatched a delegation of church leaders to Cuba for a six-day visit. NCC spokesmen claimed that, in addition to paying a visit to Havana churches, the delegates intended to discuss with Castro himself the fate of 75 political prisoners jailed by the dictator in 2003. But if an NCC statement was any indication, the delegates had no intention of seriously pressing for the prisoners? release. The NCC?s only bone of contention was, ?We find [their] sentences excessive.?

This should not be taken to mean that the NCC has been wholly silent on the issue of human rights. The organization continues to issue press releases decrying abhorrent human rights conditions around the world. However, the countries that the NCC chooses to single out for opprobrium evidence the extent to which the organization?s religious mission has been corrupted by its radical leftist politics. One study, conducted by the Institute of Religion and Democracy in September 2004, found that ?of the seven human rights criticisms it issued from 2000-2003, Israel received four, the United States two, and Sudan one.? Moreover, the study noted, ?Fully 80 percent of the NCC resolutions targeting foreign nations for human rights abuses were aimed at Israel.?

[SuperScout]

Your posting about the NCC was perfect, absolutely perfect! I have less respect for the NCC as I do for the ACLU. Anybody that holds the NCC as a paragon of anything decent is warped beyond repair.