Proud to be from the land of HHH

with apologies to my intl friends…

I mean, if Kuchinich is behind it, it MUST be brilliant!!!


Dayton endorses federal peace department
Kevin Diaz, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent
September 23, 2005 PEACE0923



WASHINGTON, D.C. – In what peace activists call a milestone, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., introduced legislation Thursday supporting a long-shot citizen lobbying effort to create a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

He is the first and, so far, only member of the U.S. Senate to publicly endorse the plan.

A remnant of the quixotic 2004 presidential candidacy of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the idea of a “Peace Department” has been derided by critics as utopian and naïve, while supporters say it is an idea whose time has come.

Almost half of Minnesota’s congressional delegation – all the Democrats but one – have lined up in support of the campaign, which calls for a cabinet-level secretary to develop an array of policies from international conflict-resolution to reducing domestic abuse and violence against animals.

Nobody gives the plan much of a chance in a Republican Congress. But backers in Minnesota – where Kucinich turned in one of his best electoral performances – say their support is intended as a political statement.

“It sends the right message,” said Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn. "It’s about promoting justice, expanding human rights and preventing conflict."

Besides McCollum, Minnesota Democrats Martin Sabo and Jim Oberstar are cosponsoring Dayton’s bill.

Minnesota is one of 12 states whose Democratic Party has endorsed the plan.

“It underscores Minnesota’s forward-looking approach to government,” Kucinich said. "That’s what Minnesota is about. It’s the one state where new ideas are welcomed."

The Minnesota Republican Party, however, is adamantly opposed, having chastised Democratic congressional candidate Coleen Rowley, who spoke at a Department of Peace conference in Washington on Sept. 11.

“Money would be taken away from the Department of Defense to fund programs such as a Peace Academy and prisoner rehabilitation,” said a statement issued last week by Minnesota GOP Executive Director Bill Walsh. "The creation of a Department of Peace is a naïve and unreasonable approach to dealing with the problems of the 21st century, including international terrorism."

Detractors say that a new peace bureaucracy, along with its proposed $8 billion-a-year price tag – pegged at 2 percent of the Pentagon budget – is just another big government idea that will never happen. But Minnesota voters are likely to hear more about it in the coming election year.

The Minnesota GOP highlighted the Peace Department proposal to attack Rowley for joining forces with “liberal extremists.” Rowley, who became a national figure for blowing the whistle on FBI shortcomings before the Sept. 11 attacks, is now challenging Rep. John Kline, R-Minn, a former Marine colonel with strong ties to the Pentagon.

Rowley dismissed the GOP’s extremist tag, saying "that’s their tactic. Everything they don’t want to do, they call you a name."

Kevin Diaz is at kdiaz@startribune.com

Wow, a US department of non-violence. What wil those crazy democrats think of next, a way to halt global warming? :angry:

Maybe if we had that one dept, we would need any of the rest - THINK!

move to MN, you guys would love the insanity here.

Hmmm… yeah let’s throw MORE money at morality/ethics issues. That’ll fix 'em.

TG

PS Flavio? Can we get a rolls eyes smilie?

The idea is an old one, if any of you were leftists in the 70s you’d have heard about this when various schools were establishing departments of peace studies. You want a model for one? Look at the Kroc institute at that horribly liberal school Notre Dame.

Yep, “crazy” “radical” idea. Crazy like Jesus and the Buddha. Anyone who would be against peace as an explicit policy of our government is pretty much silly. What better way to do it than something like this?

Dems (some at least) are finally waking up to the possiblity that they might in fact have the moral high ground, over tools of Satan like Cheney and Rummy.

:)

Quote (TomS @ Sep. 23 2005,16:23)
Dems (some at least) are finally waking up to the possiblity that they might in fact have the moral high ground, over tools of Satan like Cheney and Rummy.

:)

I think I just spewed some water onto my keyboard!! :D

Perfect idea!
More Gov't programs to solve problems!

Moral high ground!! ha ha ha...
Tom- I know you mean well, but..come on! Tools of Satan?
you're better than that!
Its a line that usually has you name calling at someone else who says things like that.
i have come to expect more! :D

OK, how about “tools of corporate greed”?

:)

“More” government is never the answer, nor is “less” government. “Appropriate and effective” government is the point.

Yeah, it was name calling, shouldn’t do that, should I?

OK, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa… :D

So, pastor, WWJD? Seriously? War? or peace? Bombs? Or the shirt with the cloak? ???

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
“Appropriate and effective” government is the point.


AH! Now that, I can agree with. :) However, the point of my rather terse, smart-a$$ reply was/is; You cannot legislate morality and ethics. That has to start at home.

TG – Mea maxima culpa… but I’m forgiven!

You know, TG, the idea that morality can’t be legislated must be false. E.g., my state recently completed a study of primary and secondary curriculae, and their final report includes provisions for teaching a whole lot of virtues - respect for diversity, tolerance, even good manners. Think about how much this sort of legislation has done to change attitudes. Or think about how much Jim Crow did to reproduce racism. So I disagree, it is possible to legislate morality, perhaps not overnight, but fairly quickly in historical terms. In the end, legal systems are based on certain moral principles - ideas of freedom, or public good, for example, and hence they don’t just reflect people’s choices or worldviews, they (re)produce them.

Hey, pastorbrian, I’m still waiting to hear your answer! Promise I won’t be mean! :)

Tom- Jesus was a conundrum.
He stood against the prevailing culture of the day and asked for peace when peace was needed and turned over the tables in the temple…an act of treason (almost) when violent action was needed.
I do not preume to be able to give a cohesive response to what Jesus would do in present situations. That, IMHO, would be the height of arrogance.

Jesus told us to take care of the widows and the poor, but more often he said make disciples. He told us that we’ll always have the poor, but the kingdom of God was at hand.-all paradoxical. War isn’t anti-biblical, but peace is a prevailing theme…
Again I find myself at the mercy of the mysteries of faith.

I’m not trying to be ambiguous, I just honestly don’t know.
I do think that GWB is a believer, and I hope that influences his decisions. I know you all might not like that opinion, but if another person who held the same convictions as you were in office you might feel the same way! Not that I want a religious government…I think the worst ramification of that would be damage to the church, not to the gov’t. (see China) Tom- I know that you look at the admin. and see corporate greed. i don’y always disagree, but that is true of all admin’s, not just the current one.

Obviously my morality is derived from scripture. I think that the moral compass of this nation is off line. I hope that we can get back on track. But my premillenial/dispensational leanings tell me that we’ll have a visit from God before that will happen.
end ramble/.:stuck_out_tongue:

Fair enough, although Jesus’ ethics seem pretty obvious to me, and the incident with the tables in the temple would seem to me to require disruptive, not entirely symbolic action against those who hold an analogous place today - and that would be the present administration.

I wonder why it’s enough that the president is a believer - I mean, even if we accept Luther’s take on the relation of works and faith (works follow faith automatically, so that without the works we know that the faith is not really there), well, the current adminstration doesn’t even pass that test. Luther got it wrong, of course, but the empahsis on faith alone was sort of there since the Nicene creed, so no surprise. In any case, I wonder how folks can say that belief is enough, when it is morally, historically, and theologically simply false.


Premillenial - how long do you think? ???

You say that all admins have been tools of corproate greed - but this crop of radical republicans simply do not have the integrity that Reagan or the first Bush or even Nixon had. These are new republicans, and the level of corporate influence, arrogance, and lack of concern for the working classes is far beyond that of any previous adminstration post WWII. In any case, you know that the fact that all are guilty does not make the sin any less.

The point of bringing up the tables, to me, was to bring up the seemingly dual nature of Christ. Some just see him as a wise guy, with lamb over his shoulders (I had a Sun. School pic like this when I was a kid) with blonde hair and blue eyes who was a weenie.
Some see him ( especially as a newer movement in Christianity seeks to put the warrior back in men via biblical truth- not a bad idea just another pendulum swing)
as a radical, freedom fighter who sought to release the poor and impoverished and lead them into freedom from the ruling classes.
Both are a little wrong and incomplete.
Liberation theology stems out of one and complete disregard for the truths of Jesus race and"jewishness" which traditionally had led to upper middle class Christianity on the other side.
To you Tom, the admin. is analogous to the Roman/Sadducee empire of the ancient near east. many conservatives don’t agree with you, including ,myself.!
I think the President is a good man. Politically I usually lean with him. Ethically, I can’t find fault with a man in the situations he has faced. I think he has tried, IMHO, to live what he believes.He might not live what you think is the Christian Ethic, but since that is where we diverge…I’m sure we will move farther apart here. Maybe somethings he has done are inconsistent with a Christian worldview…but I am no judge. I have done no better. Of course faith is never enough, but neither are works.

As for the millennial kingdom…the sooner the better. !!
So I guess Luther and I do agree on some things!

Quote (pastorbrian @ Sep. 24 2005,12:49)
Jesus was a conundrum.

Huh, I thought he was Galilean..... :p

Pastor, you are a judge, you judge him to be good and his decisions to be correct, don’t hide behind the “I can’t judge” move, it is impossible to choose not to choose.

You also make claims about the correct understanding of Jesus.

Such judgments are a good thing, however, for it means that you have not given up the possibility of finding out the truth about things, truths about Jesus and about right and wrong.

So there is hope for actual dialogue between people like you and people like me, and I find that totally encouraging.

Breakfast is on the table, but I’ll be back! :)

Pastor Brian,

I find it interesting that you would believe GWB to be a good christian that follows the teachings of Jesus. I would be interested to see where in the bible Jesus states to turn the other cheek unless there is oil involved. That instead of loving your enemy, you hunt him down and kill him along with any innocent people that get in your way. Where is it written that you should embrace the corrupt (halliberton) as a friend and ignore the needs of the poor.

You stated:
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
I think the President is a good man. Politically I usually lean with him. Ethically, I can’t find fault with a man in the situations he has faced.


I can’t help but think you are either hiding your eyes to the truth or that you want to believe the fairy tale that the administration spews or both.

Good people are dying everyday in a senseless war against no one.

It is quite sad really that you see GWB as a follower of Jesus’s words. If GWB was a true believer, we would not be at war and the katrina victims would have gotten help immediately.

very sad…

Doc-
I’m not really interested in what your views about GWB or the war are are.
Your hatred has blinded your own perception. You oversimplify, call names and blame everything on corruption, greed and a Conservative/Christian agenda.

Turn the other cheek unless oil is involved…please. If yoy think that’s the whole enchilada then you are blind.
war, katrina…everything is GWB’s fault. or halliburton…please!
…stub your toe…the conservatives might have caused it. But probably Bush, or Cheny, or Ann Coulter or Rush…blame everyone else.

As soon as liberals realized, after the election, that they are in the minority in America it has been hate GWB all day all the time for everything.
No solutions, just name calling and rhetoric.

Tom and I were having a nice discussion, and I hope we can return to it.

I’m not surprised so many of you criticise Christianity. I’m never ashamed about my love of Christ, but sometimes I feel ashamed about being a Christian.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
ONTARIO, California (Sept. 25) - A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school’s superintendent said in a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

“Your family does not meet the policies of admission”, Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl’s mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship.


I thought “A Positive Christian Lifestyle” meant believing in Christ, accepting Him as our Savior, and trying hard as we can to follow His teachings.

I never knew it meant; “Punish children because some people regard their parents as sinners”. ???

Why does a “Christian” school ignore Christ’s most basic message, i.e., love and forgiveness?

Maybe the place for us to start is with the significance of the “kingdom of God” (God’s imperial rule) vs. “Kingdom of Rome” language. I have a feeling that some of our differences are in my rejection of apocalypticism and your acceptance of it, Pastor, and this stems at least in part from different understandings of the claims about god’s kingdom.

So, to borrow a bit, what is God’s kingdom like? :)