Ann Coulter: “As if it means something, Kerry keeps vowing: ‘I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists.’ But he will stop at the Iraqi border. Or if the French and Germans aren’t on board. Or we don’t have United Nations approval. Or it would require investigating a Muslim under the Patriot Act.”
Sorry for this post after my previous (too?) lengthy one, but I want to draw attention to an article from National Review regarding the recent NYT editorial by the dean of the College of Arts and Letters of Notre Dame on why Kerry should be elected. The link is here, and now I know where our friend Brandon got his statistic on Clinton reducing the abortion rate!
Read the article!
[This post is really a follow-up to this one.]
Jim Wallis at Sojourners has an intriguing article about the need for a new confession of Christ in the midst of a political election year. I think he is right about some things, such as the fact that poverty is a moral and religious issue (which makes me wonder why the government should be doing something about it). Okay, fine.
His comments about war are partly right and partly wrong.
He writes, “Christ knows no national boundaries nor national preferences.” Well, of course not. Is this a straw man? Maybe some people feel that the Body of Christ is restricted to the Western world, but they are heretics.
Also, “Christ commands us to not only see the splinter in our adversary’s eye but also the beams in our own.” Again, of course. Those who think the United States is always right obviously have a need to reexamine what a country is, and how it fits with Christian belief. But, the fact that a country or a government can be wrong does not prohibit that country from doing that thing (e.g., war) which may have been wrong at another time.
Finally (in the “of course” category), “Christ instructs us to love our enemies, which does not mean a submission to their hostile agendas or domination, but does mean treating them as human beings also created in the image of God and respecting their human rights as adversaries and even as prisoners.”
Just because some soldiers took it upon themselves to carry out acts of cruelty and torture does not invalidate the whole enterprise. No matter what the conflict or war, humans will act like humans and do sinful things. Does that mean the whole thing is wrong, or that the highest governmental authorities had anything to do with it? Say it with me: Of course not.
But here’s the one I have a problem with: