Originally written by John Bunch  Lee's version of patriotism was a narrow and limited one, and one which did not see the big picture. Houston saw the big picture. I won't even comment on McVeigh, except to say he was a terrorist. McVeigh was a "patriot" to the USA in the same manner that Hitler was a "patriot" to Germany.

 

All versions of patriotism are more or less narrow and limited, for they posit an allegiance to a small group (however construed) in opposition to a larger group.  To be a patriot is to consider some group -local, national, or whatever, to be superior to humanity in general.  It's just a matter of degree.

As for your comments about McVeigh, I notice you say you will not comment, and then you explicitly make one exception, but then acutally make two comments.  Why say you will not comment if you then proceed to make two?  You can't simultaneously comment and maintain that you are not commenting.  That is pure Orwell.

I don't have any reason to think that McVeigh was not a patriot.  I don't think its useful to call people terrorists, but that point aside, I see no reason why he could not be both a terrorist and a patriot.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  He certainly made choices that I would probably not have made myself - but then again, I have no way of knowing for sure what choices I would have made had I been in his situation with his life experiences.

Originally written by John Bunch There is no excuse for what he did. McVeigh was a coward (planting a bomb takes no guts at all, and he did not place himself in harm's way) and a terrorist.

I didn't say there was an excuse for what he did.  I do, however, refrain from making judgments about the morality of other people.  That is God's job, not mine.  I can't know all the circumstances that led him to do what he did.  I don't have all necessary information to sit in judgment on him, and therefore decline to cast any stones.

Being a "patriot" is neither a positive nor a negative thing, it just is.  A murderer can be a patirot, so can a saint.  One can be a coward, a "terrorist," or anything else and also be a patriot.  Patriotism is defined as love of (some sort of) land and the people natively associated with it.  Terrorism and cowardice have no semantic elements in common with it, and all possible combinations of "terrorist," "coward" and "patriot" are possible (one may be a cowardly terrorist patriot).

I absolutely don't think McVeigh acted appropriately (although I would refrain from making a judgment as to the absolute morality of his actions), but I don't think he was a coward at all.  He was very gutsy.  Detonating a bomb from a distance, without being in harm's way, oneself, is what US fighter pilots and other military personnel often do.  Would you therefore call them cowards?  I wouldn't.  The (mis)use of the term "coward" as a way to denigrate people with poltical leanings you disagree with is an Orwellian distortion of language.

Originally written by John Bunch Read the Old Testament sometime, and see what a moral relativist the God of the Old Testament is. One moment he is saying he loves everyone, and then next, he is ordering the Jews to go into some rival province and kill everyone. You can find almost any moral stance in the Bible, including statements that God approves of infanticide. So I do not consider the Bible to be a good source for moral information. That is one reason I always find it amusing when the Christian Right in America rails against "moral relativism". If you want moral absolutes, read Kant.

Well I of course have read the Old Testament.  I believe there is much wisdom encoded in it, but it largely reflects the ideology and fears of a relatively primative people.  The god of the New Testament (aka Jesus), as well as the god of the Koran, reflect an evolution in theology towards a view of a more complex god.  I believe that God is infinite and transcends the limitations of human language.  No single description, or any holy book, or even any single theological system, can adequately describe God.  At best, they can merely describe a given person's incomplete understanding (or misunderstanding) of God.

Timothy McVeigh is, in my imperfect way of seeing things, an unfortunate individual who made a number of decisions that seem misguided.  He certainly brought, at least in the most obvious and immediate of senses, a great deal of unhappiness and pain to many, many people.  I am sure that he also brought an infinite amount of good that we cannot see; perhaps it has yet to come to fruition.  Perhaps, for example, the bombing in Oklahoma City enabled two people to meet (perhaps the suriving spouses of two victims), who will marry and have children, who in turn will have children, and so forth for several generations, until a child is born that discovers the cure for cancer.  It could then be said that Timothy McVeigh's actions led to the cure of cancer.  Every action sets off an infinite chain reaction of events, some of which will seem good and some bad to various observers.  Goodness and badness are thus nothing other than figments of the imagination.

This is, in large part I believe, why Christ enjoined us all to love our brother as we do ourselves.  There were no exceptions to this command.  The rule was not "love everyone but Timothy McVeigh," or "love everyone except those who blow up buildings."  One ot he many things that astounds me about fundamentalist Christians is how willing they are to overlook this particular fundamental, and literal, command of Christ.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out...

I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation. Plus the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ.

Seems Voter turn-out for the EU Parliament turns out to be America, America... plus Religious Divide?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 21, 2009 5:50 AM Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out... I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation.

I agree with Liliana.  This is a metaphorical description of the consequences of ignoring the laws of the universe.  It is devoid of hatred or ill will, just states what happens if one ignores the laws (i.e. "does not abide in me").  You can ignore gravity if you like, but you will suffer the consequences if you step over a cliff.  The difficulty, of course, arises in determining what law is meant here.  Metahporical reading is quite complex and takes considerable study to do effectively.  Mere knowledge of the literal text is not helpful, and can in fact be counter-productive.  It is for this very reason that the Catholic Church fought literacy on the part of the laity for so long, and resisted masses in vulgar tongues.  People who think they understand the bible seldom do.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 21, 2009 11:50 AM Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out... I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation. Plus the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ.

The whole 15th chapter of John's gospel uses the symbol of the vine and its branches. Grapes, along with the wine and raisins that are made from them, are also mentioned throughout the Bible, all the way from Genesis to Revelation. There, along with the olive tree and the fig tree, grape vines were often used as symbols of the fertility of the Promised Land of Israel.

In John's 15, (forgive me for adapting this from the Web) Jesus had said at first:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you." {John 15:1-3 RSV}

Jesus would often say in his parables "The kingdom of God is like a vine and its branches." "I am the vine," he says here, 'the true one." "My Father," he adds, "is the gardener."

What is the role of the gardener? At a certain time of the year vinekeepers cut off "sucker shoots" from the vines. It is because they will never bear fruit. They will grow leaves abundantly, but they will never produce fruit. If allowed to remain, these shoots will actually sap the life of the vine and greatly reduce the quantity of fruit it will bear. The first work of the vinekeeper is to totally remove fruitless branches. It had recently happened to one of the disciples. The Father had removed Judas, the fruitless branch from the disciples' band.

The second work of the Father, is to cleanse the fruitbearing branches. The word here, "prunes," is chosen as meaning "cut back." This is also what vinedressers do. They not only go through a vineyard and cut off shoots, but they cut back others so that they will bear more fruit.

"Pruning is a drastic process. Jesus is clearly teaching here that this is what the Father will do in our lives to make us bear more fruit. He will drastically cut back our lives in a cleansing process. In a vineyard, pruning also removes dirt, cobwebs, dried leaves, and fungus that has collected. According to our Lord, in the believer, this is done by the "word which I have spoken unto you."  (http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/4309/3870.html)

Right before the verse 15:6 with which we started, Jesus goes on to tell us the part that we play in this:

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." {John 15:4-5 RSV}

Stay with me, then, and I will lead you. I am your only salvation...

Liliana says that "the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ." Too bad that in the Christian Europe (to link back to our topic) or the world in general not everyone abides in that...