Christian School Attacked Over Quran Desecrations

I fail to see what in the SBC's doctrinal statement, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, which I affirm with only two mental footnotes, involves selling out to a political party. Could you please explain?

 

Look up and read the statements that SBC heavy hitters have made about politicians, politics, and social issues of the day. Also, and perhaps even stronger, look at statements by SBC preachers make that make the news. Then, also look at statements made by conservative SBC folk on this board.

I grew up SBC and have seen it move far in my lifetime.

There was a most interesting interview on "The Story" this morning. Listen to the interview and notice what the woman says about SB churches when she was a teenager ... and she was a member of one. I listened to it on my computer when I got up this morning here in Prague this morning.

Here is an abstract of the piece:

 

Sorry, but this ridiculous claim of CTB's has been lost in the shuffle, and I would like a rational explanation of Crabby's statement.

 

The US foreign policy has gone far in making enemies in the Mid-East. This is doubly sad as the US did so many things right after WW II in Europe and Japan. So many Mid-East decisions, that must have seemed good to people in various administrations, turned out to be short sighted and ended up causing more problems than they solved, in making more enemies than friends. The US was held in quite high regard in the Mid-East at the end of WW II. Sadly and tragically our policies changed that into bitter hatred. I am not defending their hatred of us. I am simply saying our foreign policies toward that part of the world were not wise and fruitful.

We made similar mistakes in Asia.

Here are a few representative mistakes concerning the Mid-East:

Iran: The US was instrumental in putting the Shal Pahlevi in power failing to realize or not caring that the Shah considered Iran his personal fiefdom. He never had the backing of the public at large and alienated most of the people of Iran through is draconian, brutal policies. The backing of the Shah and the lack of foresight proved fatal to the Shah and to the US interests in Iran. The policy succeeded in creating a bitter enemy instead of a ally or at least a neutral country. This opened the door to Ayatollah Khomeini taking over.

In 1954, the United States assisted in replacing Iran's constitutional government with an autocratic government. In 2006, the U.S. became aggressive in trying to replace Iran's autocratic government with a constitutional government - another example of a counterproductive U.S. foreign policy.

Iraq:

The U.S. supported Iraq in the 1980's and helped put Hussein in power. With his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 America's attitude switched. Within one month after the start of the war, U.S. led forces in the Persian Gulf war destroyed Iraq's military and eventually Iraq's economy. U.S. policy built up an intended friend, whom we had put and kept in power, and then in 1990 decided he was an enemy whereby we should save Iraq by destroying Iraq.

Here are some ramifications of that failed policy:

# Shifted resources from a legitimate war on terrorism to a wasted war on a sovereign country.
# Shifted a battle against Al Queda to a wider battlefield against expanded opponents.
# Inherited the ethnic problems that faced all Iraqi rulers.
# Alienated itself from much of the world community.
# Made all wars legal by its doctrine of pre-emptive strike.
# Polarized American citizens,
# Created economic, military and social quagmires from which America might not escape.

We also have failed policies concerning Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria just to name a few more countries.

 

Question: Do any of those countries (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, et al) have "failed policies" concerning other countries throughout the world?

 

The more important question is, would they have a failed economy if we had not deposed legitimate governments, that did not hate us, but also did not like us, and install dictators who later either turned on us or created such miserable conditions, as in Iran, that they were overthrown by people who hate us?

As we helped the dictators into office, what responsibility do we have for the failed economies and social policies of those dictators?

 

And what level of responsibility do they bear?

Or are they simply guiltless victims?

 

I'll tell you what, CTB: I refuse to fall into the trap of "I brought it on myself."

Women aren't raped because they asked for it; people aren't murdered in their homes because they deserved it; children aren't kidnapped and violated because it was somehow justified.

Criminal acts are criminal acts. There's nothing that can justify a criminal act.

Were the terrorists of 9/11 acting on behalf of an entire country? Or the entire religion/political system of islam?

If you answer no -- and you must, or you have to admit that the entire religion of islam condones violence, or some specific country authorized the terrorists to work on their behalf -- then the only answer to 9/11 is that it was a criminal act.

To then turn around and say it was justified--even if in some remotely possible way--does not in any way change that it was a criminal act; i.e., the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right."

 

Did we contribute to the problems we have today?

Not a logical comparison.

No one is arguing that. Refer to the question above.

They were not acting for a country or for the entire religion of Islam.

I hope you know better than that.

I have never said it was justified. Such acts never are. However, again refer to the first question.

 

So if the terrorists of 9/11 were not acting for a country...

But the actions of our government have created enemies in the Middle East...

Then the only possible conclusion is - in order to avoid futher acts of terror against our country our government must be sure not to offend a single individual person.

How exactly is this possible?

Every single possible action or inaction will have those who support it and those who oppose it or are offended by it.

 

There were working for Al-Qaeda, not any country. Al-Qaeda is an enemy of a number of Arab countries, i.e. Saudia Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to destroy the Saudi royal family and take over.

Yes!

Totally illogical conclusion.

How exactly is this possible?

Every single possible action or inaction will have those who support it and those who oppose it or are offended by it.[/QUOTE]

 

Hey, I've got an idea! Based on your conclusions, why don't we make sure all our actions don't offend the group of people with a bat-crazy religion that tells them to kill people (Muslims) and instead offend the people that worship the true God (Christians).

Oh, never mind...seems the liberals came up with that idea a few years ago....

 

Sadly, it appears you have totally missed the point of the conversation today.

Oh, and please don't ask me to answer again and again. Just go back and re-read the earlier posts. Thanks.

 

Sadly it appears you missed the point of my comment.

Oh, and I haven't asked you to answer anything. Not sure what you are talking about....

 

Are you saying that the actions of a few terrorists on 9/11 was not a criminal act? If not, then what was it?

"Refer to the first question" doesn't absolve anyone of individual responsibility for their actions.

The United States will always have enemies, whether they be Russian or muslim. Whether we "caused" them to be enemies doesn't have any bearing; they don't like our particular ideology, politics, religion, whatever; and therefore they have a "cause" to consider us their enemy.

So now your turn to answer a question: Are they blameless?

 

Nope, never thought or said that it was not criminal.

I wanted you to answer the question.

[quote[The United States will always have enemies, whether they be Russian or muslim. Whether we "caused" them to be enemies doesn't have any bearing; they don't like our particular ideology, politics, religion, whatever.[/quote]

No one doubts that. My question was did the US make mistakes in their foreign policy decisions that play a part in our enemies today?

Is anyone ever blameless?

 

CTB, thank you for a reasoned response.

However, there is not, and can never be, justification of any sort for the heinous acts perpetrated against innocent civilians on 9/11.

 

Ok - then I amend my statement/question.

Then the only possible conclusion is - in order to avoid futher acts of terror against our country our government must be sure not to offend a single unofficial group.

How exactly is this possible?

Every single possible action or inaction will have a group(s) who support it and those who oppose it or are offended by it.

 

I've got a great idea for punishment.

Let's be merciful to him.

Let's send him out on a tarmac, give him better materials, and allow him to practice his underwear bombing until he's successful.

 

Um...actually, you did, when you responded to me with "I hope you know better than that." Unless you meant something else entirely, which I've apparently overlooked and misunderstood.

And I'm trying to get you to respond with the only answer you can: It doesn't matter if the U.S. "caused" it or not, they would have found another reason to disagree with us.

Did any of those nations make mistakes in their foreign policies that play a part in their enemies today?

So, in other words, you agree that both sides have a part in what you're ascribing to the enmity against the U.S.?