Is Christian discipleship meant to embrace non-violence, justice and actually doing what Christ taught?

Doing our duty to Queen and Country; doing total discipleship to our God, JC1

Thinking about our nation's recent military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, is there one verse in one of Paul's letters that has a bearing on those trouble spots?  And another as, perhaps, a slight corrective to that one?  What could I be thinking of?!

What would be the mind of Christ in those situations?

How then does that apply to our own Christian discipleship?  Should it affect how we vote, how we write to or, even visit, our MEPs, MPs and councillors?

Hi Tim,

Thanks for all these thoughts on walks etc - we will look forward to seeing you by 9am Friday - we will bring our own lunch and so be ready for the off.

re: your thought for the day, your question about the 'mind of Christ' is a really good one; unfortunately He doesnt offer any soundbites on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Labour leadership etc!!!! (No soundbites but much teaching in the Gospels, Acts and in Paul's letters, don't you think, Peter?)  So we have to rely on the big picture of scripture as a whole I think.  Both the Old Testament and the gospels were written during tumultuous times politically and socially  from slavery in Egypt, warring nations, constant attempts to stamp out the people of God, the failure of the Jewish kings to meet expectations etc;. In the NT there is the total occupation and dominance of the Roman empire with all the injustice and inhumanity that accompanied it.  The apostle Paul made good use of his Roman citizenship and was not, of course, rebellious or revolutionary.  Unlike our Western governments and the public opinion that allows them to be so.  But only when it comes to weaker countries who can't hit back (apart from with terrorism).

When it comes to Romans 13 v 1-7, my commentary has: "The Christian and the state.  Though the Christian has no right to punish (12 v 19-21), the state does have that right and the Christian must respect it.  Paul's confidence that the Roman state is, on the whole, just and beneficent is matched in 1 Peter 2.13-17; 3.v13."

How is the mind of God and of his Messiah expressed? Constantly reconciliation with God through his Messiah is the theme, BEFORE reconciliation with our neighbour is possible. So the sermon on the mount (which most people take as great advice for life) is all about mourning our sin, hungering for God and His righteousness, seeking peace with God first, and only then can we live in our messy world loving our neighbour in need.

So I cannot expect a world that doesn't live under the lordship of Christ to follow his way any more than the OT Israelites, or NT believers could expect those around them to do. Should those who do live in the lordship of Christ follow His (non-aggression) way, however difficult or costly?  That doesn't mean I shouldn't do 'all the good I can to all the people I can just so long as I can', but I think it suggests that the main witness of Christian believers is to enjoy living under the lordship of Christ.- enjoying his world, his peace, his forgiveness, and do all I can to be reconciled with my 'neighbour'.

This may not be what you wanted to hear, as you are still in'campaigning' mode, but I think our world will remain messy until Christ comes again !!  But our own little, individual world should have the minimum mess (or hypocrisy) in it.

Every blessing Tim, and thanks again for all the prep for our time away.

Peter.

This has been sent only to you, Les but is one reply to what Peter wrote on the back of the sheet I gave you yesterday.

You are right.  It is campaigning but, as I see it, it is also, for me, doing my duty to Queen and Country and discipleship to my God (JC1).  "Give to Caesar those things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's."

I think, this kind of patriotism puts Jesus Christ first and is also in line with His Spirit that cannot possibly be about overthrowing foreign governments.  In this century alone, these have been Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.  Last decade, our friends and allies (and our fellow believers) in the States had seven countries as part of their Project for the New American Century.  All to be overthrown to become democratic and American compliant.  All contrary to Titus 3 v 1 and Romans 13 - being submissive and obedient to rulers and authorities.  Especially, the Spirit of Jesus cannot be about bringing democracy down the barrel of a gun, as all three main political parties we vote for believe and do.  My pastor, Les Hardwick, told me that the corrective to complying with the wishes of the authorities is the verse in Acts, "Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men' " Acts 5 v 29.

Therefore, should Christian believers be voting for the main political parties who do war around the world, to try and keep Western compliant governments in power or, use military might to protect their vital strategic interests?  "Not by might, nor by power but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts" Zechariah 4 v 6.

​Tim

Hi Tim 

Thank you for your e-mail in which you raise some very difficult questions.  In Matthew 24v6 Jesus said "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.".He also spoke in chapter 25 of the need to look after the poor and hungry v 31 to 46.

The question of voting  has to be answered according to our own conscience accepting that someone else will act differently while following their own conscience. Not voting can open the door to  even worse forms of government     (there was a time when I would not vote.)

In September 2002 (15 February 2003) over one million people marched in London protesting against the war against Iraq, the war still went ahead!  The 1950s,saw many protests against  weapons of mass destruction, nothing has changed.  There seems little we can do! but we can feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, try to overcome poverty and vote for the party which seems most willing to tackle these issues!

Les

Thanks v much for these thoughts.

We need a much higher profile given to non violence, constraint not coercion, a new determination to eschew aggression, power, domination, colonialism, empire building, forcing our ways (and wars) on others.

A new determination to allow religious and political toleration, equality, justice tempered with mercy instead of constant punishment and revenge.  A rejection of hypocrisy in too much unethical foreign policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay.  A rejection of the all out war on Gaza that our side perpetrated in July and August of 2014.  A rejection of lying that allows some of our political leaders to say, "Of course, I will press the nuclear button" to send much of humanity to kingdom come.  Obscene riches to allow, with Trident, such disgusting behaviour by our leaders and, when poverty and inequality is so rife too!

"What we sow today we will reap tomorrow".  Mayhem, instability, civil war in the Middle East is now spreading, with revenge attacks, to our own Western nations that are bombing, missiling Syria and Iraq - and, for many more years to come.  Nearly all the politicians we vote for have unleashed the dogs of war, opened the Pandora's Box, well and truly stirred up a hornet's nest of anger and hatred against Israel and the West.

I must come round today to get the meter reading that Places for People want today.

Every blessing

Tim

Are we white Westerners in any way responsible for instability, turmoil and warfare in the Middle East?

From our track record of warfare, around the globe, in every single year since, at least 1914, we are probably killing more humans in Syria and Iraq than Islamic State is.  Did we stir things up in the region in the first place, over ten decades of cheeky, oil motivated, military intervention in the Middle East?  Especially, since the end of our war in Afghanistan on 31 December 2014, the end of our warfare in Iraq and our support for rebellion called the Arab Spring?

Unlike Western behaviour in their region, at least Islamic State with their conquests, give the inhabitants the choice of staying put and remaining Muslims if they convert to their fundamental interpretation of Islam or, converting to Islam if not Muslims or, paying taxes to Islamic State or, moving out.  The Western way was to bring God, guns and germs to the original inhabitants in the case of our North American conquests of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Killing the adherents of Islamic State in an attempt to exterminate the lot of them, seems to me to be a rather tall order.  Indeed, futile.  Far better to stop our violence and aggression and to welcome those fleeing Islamic State and Western/Russian air strikes.  At least, we can then be sure that all the refugees are fleeing Islamic State and not Western/Russian bombs.

Western policy is to remove the legitimate government in Syria and to extinguish Islamic State.  Russia policy is to support the Syrian government.  You could argue that we, once more, are over throwing a government down the barrel of a gun and the communist/capitalist Russia are upholding the lawful government.

West is best at overthrowing governments it calls regimes

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

​Switzerland's values v UK/France/US values

Corbyn is NOT a warrior, NOT a warmonger.  He does NOT believe in upping the violence to turn friends into enemies and, then, with more retaliation from our side, making even more ferocious enemies.  Make the UK like Switzerland - famous for non aggression, for being revenge free and, with a first class rail network.  What a fine example for us to follow, James, my friend!  (James Morris, my MP)

Switzerland never attacked Egypt in what the UK, France and Israel called the 'Suez Crisis'.

Switzerland never ousted democratic Prime Minister Mosadeq in Iran.

Switzerland never ousted democratic Allende in Chile on another 9/11.  This time, 1973.

Switzerland never ousted Saddam from Iraq in 2003 or the Taliban in 2001, only to find that the Taliban popped up again, al Qaeda was reinvigorated and Islamic State also rose like a phoenix out of the ashes of our own making in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Switzerland did not remove Gaddafi from Libya to make things worse for the people there.

Switzerland is not part of the crusader ("if you are not for us you are against us" GW Bush) coalition of the willing to oust Bashar al Assad from Syria.

Non-aligned Switzerland does not get attacked, bombed and hated for killing our fellow humans 3,000 miles away.
Switzerland is morally strong on the world stage.
UK/France/US is militarily strong on the world stage.

Is the West on the side of governments or rebels?

Why should a government NOT be ruthless in putting down a rebellion?  Any UK government would be.  Even the good people of Scotland in 2014 had the fear of God put up them, if they dared to be so stroppy as to vote for independence from big brother England.  Our problem, in our so well meaning, we know what is best for you fortress, is supporting the rebels to overthrow their governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria.  And look where it gets us.

(reply to David Blair article, 'Putin's Plan for Syria is a war without end', in the Telegraph on 2 Oct 2015)

Why always Iraq but never Afghanistan?

John Payne has quoted from Wikipedia, "A strong supporter of the Blair government, he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[7]"

Am I alone in thinking that so many, rightly, condemn the Labour Party for attacking and invading Iraq but seem to excuse or even agree with the attack on, and invasion of, Afghanistan that began the War/Crusade of (not 'on', in my opinion) Terrorism on the 7 October 2001?

Afghanistan then got it in the neck from us upright, peace loving and law abiding Westerners for the next 13 years (to Dec 2014).  All this slaughter as revenge and punishment for having Al Qaeda in the country, who launched the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York.

Am I completely off beam in thinking like this?

My comment on Harry Leslie Smith's piece in the 'Guardian'

from: 'IAdmireAngelinaJolie':

"He has been dead a long time now, but I doubt very much that he would want to lay a wreath at the

Cenotaph. He was opposed to all forms of aggression... and the memorializing of such aggression. The

folly of man is best forgotten." (the comment that 'IAdmireAngelinaJolie' comments on, now:)

Yes. Well. Amos Oz said:The only alternative to continuing the Israeli military operation is simply to follow 

Jesus Christ and turn the other cheek. I never agreed with Jesus Christ about the need to turn the other 

cheek to an enemy. Unlike European pacifists I never believed the ultimate evil in the world is war. In my view 

the ultimate evil in the world is aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force.

That is where the difference lies between a European pacifist and an Israeli peacenik like myself. And if I may

add a little anecdote: A relative of mine who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt always reminded 

her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards 

and flowers but by Soviet soldiers and submachine guns.

http://www.dw.de/oz-lose-lose-situation-for-israel/a-17822511

SELF:

This is similar to the non-violent, English Baptist member of a Christian Peacemaker team who was 

kidnapped by al Qaeda in Iraq and then was rescued by the SAS.

I do find it strange that an Israeli peacenik, Amos Oz should write, "In my view the ultimate evil in the world is  

aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force."

Is not using force or violence, aggression also?  Both Israelis and Palestinians accuse the other of just that -

aggression.  It gets them nowhere but to yet more revenge violence.  Revenge is so sweet for the victim of

aggression.  However, when the victim of aggression hits back, we call that terrorism.  Hence, al Qaeda, the

Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic State, some Palestinians are all terrorists.  Our side - NATO and Israel - 

are the peaceniks, the peacemakers because we use our violence and aggression - whoops, I mean force - 

to bring peace out of aggression by our military might is right!

This is all absolutely absurd.  Better to talk to terrorists, who are people like us and get a negotiated,

permanent settlement - as in N Ireland.  Netanyahu and Abbas may then become the Israel/Palestinian 

Chuckle Brothers like Paisley and McGuinness were in N Ireland.  That is even more absurd!

re Stephanie's letter to Archbishop Welby

Excellent letter, Stephanie that I fully agree with.

I wrote this before I read Jeremy Bowen, 'The Making of the Modern Middle East', published

For me, vapourising mainly Muslims, largely civilians since the 7 October 2001, in horrific fire and flame from our safe, secure, aircraft cockpits or missile launchers or from our computers operating drones, is far more reprehensible than one-to-one beheadings of a handful of 'Christian', Western journalists and aid workers.  And, their deaths it seems, came from the reactivation of our attacks on the Muslim military in Iraq.  This time, known as Islamic State.

Since we have our democratic, capitalist 'Judeo-Christian' states, even in the very heart of the Arab Middle East (Western-aligned Israel is our regional superpower), is it really so surprising that some fundamentalist Muslims want their own Islamic state on what they strongly believe to be holy, Muslim soil for only Muslims to tread?  We even have much difficulty in letting them have two or three Muslim schools in Birmingham!

There seems to be almost total incomprehension of the Muslim point of view, as well as abject ignorance of the non-violent Christ of the Gospels, whom many of us in the wicked West claim to follow!

Islamic State v Judeo-Christian States or,

Muslim fighters and civilians wiped out, versus not even a scratch on us lot.

AIR STRIKES BY NATO ON IRAQ - more cowardly asymetric warfare but so popular when we can kill foreigners without being killed ourselves.  524 in favour; 43 against on Friday 26 September 2014.

As with Israel in attacking Gaza with almost complete impunity, we are also waging our wars from the air, alone so not one of our armed forces people stand any chance whatsoever of getting killed.  Drones and war planes to bring death for Muslims from the skies but, our soldiers risking their deaths on the ground to effectively deal with Isis, is ruled out.  For me, these are immoral, unjust wars but very popular with the 'Christian' West and Israel when their own soldiers are immune from harm.

In all our wars, we end up killing mostly civilians, the non-combatants who simply want to be left alone from American, British, French and Israeli attacks from the air.    Once you start down that road, in order to win your war, you have to commit genocide and slaughter the lot, which is obviously impractical and immoral.

As we found with our wars of aggression in SE Asia over many decades of killing 'Communists', the people we are trying to kill simply melt away into 'nowhere'.  We lost every single war, too!

As we waged war on Muslims and others in the Middle East, we found with the failed War of Terrorism, that many of our weapons simply ended up in the hands of the Jihadists.  We should never have started.

As we found with our friend and ally Israel, trying to stop the noise and inconvenience of Hamas rockets by sending over their/our much more lethal missiles, it still ends with killing and injuring many more Gazan civilians than Hamas fighters who never did stop their rocket firing - until the ceasefire took effect.

If they want to have a pure, Shariah law, Islamic State let them.  We have our pure, democratic, capitalist state.  In the West, after centuries of intolerance and brutal religious persecution, we now pride ourselves on our political and religious tolerance - until recent years.  Muslims in the UK are no threat to ourselves and are not even campaigning for the imposition of Shariah Law, apart from in a few domestic/marital matters affecting Muslims, only.  In Iraq, I understood, IS gave the people the choice of converting to Islam, paying a fine or leaving.  When Christians fled to the mountain top, American humanitarian aid was dropped but, also, the bombing and missile attacks from the air began.  In retaliation, the beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers started.   Revenge is sweet for the religious and irreligious of both 'Islam' and 'Christianity'.  We all like to get our own back in some way or another.

Corruption is the greater evil than killing Commies and Muslims

Dear all

What some sons of Abraham get up to!

For what its worth, this is how I see things, after reading Simon’s blog about the Central African Republic (CAR).

ONE VERSION:

What a horrendous time for the people of the CAR.  I cannot possibly understand how the situation developed to such a frightening scenario of sectarian violence.  All I do know that the killings by Muslims must not make us even more anti-Islam or prejudiced, in anyway against Muslims we might meet.  It certainly must not make us even more determined to get our own back or, to extend the War of Terrorism in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014.

As regards political correctness, I think that being correct in every way is the only correct thing to be!  We could do with being religiously correct, too but then that means being loyal to the faith you were brought up in when we should be able to think things out for ourselves and to come to our own conclusions.

Being correct in every way means, I think, acknowledging that the Muslims have a better track record than the Christians when it comes to who does the least violence.

Being correct in every way means, I think, accepting that the Koran has no violence but the Bible has much.

Being correct means understanding that the Arab slave trade was much less extensive,  and brutal than the slave trade by the ‘Christian’ nations.

It seems to me that the Muslim countries look as though they are less avaricious, materialistic and less dominated by the ‘consume ever more’ mentality of the now very rich ‘Christian’ nations.

It is definitely the Western world, with those nation’s wars over their various empires, over the last two hundred years, at least, that has the worst record for man’s inhumanity to man.  The Western, ‘Christian’ world that includes America, is responsible for

• the killings of Africans that included Muslims during the vicious slave trade.
• decades of oppression and deaths of black people by the supposedly ‘Christian’ and advanced nations of the USA and South Africa.

• the persecution and killing of Jews,
• then, Communists in the countries of SE Asia as we fought for “our vital strategic interests”, capitalism and democracy against godless, evil Communism; and, now
• the latest horrors are perpetrated against Islam and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both direct and indirect killings in, so far, twelve years of the war of terrorism in leaving a wasteland, mayhem and intermittent civil war in Iraq.
• Yet, Bush and Blair sincerely believed they were doing what God wanted in launching the War of Terrorism.  Just like the two Muslims who killed the soldier outside his barracks in Woolwich in 2013.  Except Bush and Blair have much more blood on their hands than the two Muslims, of course.  Abraham and his God and Allah have much to answer for.
• for years the West has threatened to attack Iran for wanting nuclear weapons to balance or match Israel’s arsenal and so deter an attack from them.
• this year, the Western powers nearly attacked Syria as punishment for a chemical attack in July.  Putin saved the day.  And, what an excellent article of his in the ‘New York Times’, too!

Yet, we get into such a state of indignation over the very much lower killings in the countries of eastern Europe that came under Stalin’s control in the wake of his help in defeating Nazism.  We honestly think USSR communism killed “millions of millions” of their own (Daily Mail Dep Editor, Jon Staefel, ‘Newsnight’ 2013) but we conveniently forget our own millions whose premature deaths we are responsible for! However, since we kill blacks and foreigners, perhaps that does not matter.

Therefore, not man’s inhumanity to man but ‘Christian’, Western inhumanity to the Muslims of this century.  How very ironic, how very thoughtless and hypocritical of us, how very unkind of us, how very reprehensible of us!

ANOTHER VERSION:

1. I do suspect (but there is no way of proving this) that down through the centuries, the adherents of the three dominant and influential Abrahamic faiths have been more responsible for killing their own than all the other faiths put together.

2. Muslims in my former workplace (I have now retired) tend to view their home of Britain as being founded and still based on the Judeo/Christian view of the world eg for many centuries the practices of Parliament on the centrality of the Bible and Christian belief and, especially, in the Coronation ceremony of our once all powerful, unelected and dictatorial and, too often, very badly behaved monarchs.  In other words, since we label all Arabs as Muslims, some Muslims do like to label all people in the West as Christians.  That is understandable.

3. The latest upsurge of violence between two largest branches of Abraham's family started with what the 'Christian' West called a declaration of war on the USA - 9/11.  The 11 September 2001.  Indeed, that Bible believing Christian who was saved from alcoholism by the Lord, President GW Bush called his launch of the War of Terrorism, a crusade.  For Muslims, the word, 'crusade' has the horrifying connotations of the first named Christian crusades against the Muslims some centuries ago.

4. That far wiser man of God, Bishop Desmond Tutu, commented on 9/11 as being an act of terrorism and not an act of war.  The implication being that the White House administration of the time, rather than seeing the attack on the twin towers as an opportunity to launch their 'New American Century Project' of violence and domination in the Middle East, should have used the courts of law to bring Osama bin Laden and the other surviving plotters to justice under American law in the USA and not to lock suspects up for years in Guantanamo Bay outside American law, in a state of limbo.  Many seem to be suspects picked up on a whim, provided they were Muslims.  Some remain in Guantanamo Bay without evidence against them and without trial.  No wonder we have many Muslim insurgents or terrorists fighting our brave, upstanding, heroic soldiers.

5. Rather than keeping within the law, we have seen both the very military powerful Jewish state of Israel and its financial backer and supporter, the 'Christian' state of the USA, both indulging in extra judicial assassinations of their enemies who are classed by both democratic states as 'terrorists'.  Exactly the same name was used to describe Nelson Mandela who narrowly escaped hanging for his crime against the state of South Africa.

6. Using the term ‘terrorist’ does help them to assuage their consciences in circumventing the far lengthier but inconvenient route of going down the legal avenues of using American law on US territory.  Or, in the case of Israel, Israeli law.

7. What is worse, the men of violence in both the Knesset and in the White House feel quite unable to even abide by the resolutions and mandates of the United Nations.  The UN, like the law, is another inconvenience that both the Western states, with sometimes Russia and China, simply ignore when it suits them!

8. No wonder we have constant war and mayhem in some parts of Africa, along with Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq and Afghanistan that we have liberated to enjoy the rich blessings of Western democracy, religion, culture and schooling for girls.

9. In addition, all these men of violence, some the sons of Abraham in the prosperous 'Christian' West (and not so prosperous 'Christian' Africa) or the 'Muslim' Middle East and Africa, make the very weapons that fuel these never-ending wars.

10. The Bible has much violence in the Old Testament (see NOTE, below); the Koran has none.  I have read every single word (practically) more than once in the Bible and literally every word in the Koran, once.

11. The Bible even has rules for waging holy war (Deut 20 v 1-20); the Koran has none.  The Koran allows self-defence but not pre-emptive attacks of so called ‘self-defence’ as the Israelis have done many times since their state was founded.  Founded, too out of many acts of terrorism in 1946 and 1947 to force the hand of the authorities to give them, and only them, the land.  The most unholy Holy Land, ever.

12. The centuries of the most shocking violence indulged in by the supposedly Christian Western European nations - and the United States of Aggression with its offshoot, Israel - all, in this century, set a very bad example to the warring factions in the Central African Republic.  Or, is it just human nature the world over, regardless of religious belief?

The time is well overdue for us good Christian men and women, the righteous of the Lord, to actually begin living up to the, admittedly, extremely difficult teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.  Or, if we cannot even attempt to do the non-aggression of being peacemakers instead of warmongers, how about abiding by UN mandates, international law or, just the law of our own lands?

​​

Or, if even that is beyond us, how about keeping to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?  This time, only thirty paragraphs of sound, common decency for us to attempt!

NOTE

The Bible is a contrast of ‘Thou shalt not kill’, yet also ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth’, to genocide as God told Israel to wipe the inhabitants of the Promised Land off the face of the map. From that to a loving God and His people are to love neighbour and to love enemies.  Perhaps, all that explains why atheist, agnostic and devout Christian believers all take part in warfare, and look up to our soldiers as heroes, as making the ultimate sacrifice, as noble service and, who so respect our soldier heroes (as my father in law did).  Nearly all vote for the three main political parties who are this century’s war parties.  For it is they who order the years of aggression, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, without any authorisation from the UN.

Which power bloc of humanity does the most killings?

Many thanks, John.  Sorry for this length - I just love to crystalise my thoughts in writing!

Which power bloc of humanity does the most killings - the Christian capitalist West or the Communists and Muslim extremists in the East?

I particularly liked 'Drop Medicines, not Bombs'.  Not just medicines but, for Afghanistan and Iraq from the War of Terrorism started on 7 October 2001, we would have been better off dropping 'bikes' not bombs!  By bikes I mean everything but handing out death and injury.  Parachute humanitarian aid in to these poor countries and never death dealing devices, unless authorised by the Security Council and never Congress and the US President.

My Christian discipleship also means doing what Paul advised, "Think of others as better than yourselves."  Hence, I am very unpatriotic in mischievously delighting to point out how it appears that the Christian West, down too many centuries (not just the 20th) has been the worst offender in killing other humans.  Death by all kinds of horrendous means that the West got to do first. From, just 1945:- use of WMD, Korea, the Kenyan atrocities in the 1950s, the West's wars against the Communists in many countries of SE Asia, extra judicial killings but, good news, we do seem to refrain from suicide bombing (I wonder why?  Of course, no need to when we have drones to keep us safe when killing!)

It seems, that it was not the Arab Muslims or the Communists who did the most killings (even when remembering but, never verified, Stalin's millions that he killed*).  For me, this is because of the European nation's responsibility for rounds one and two of the industrialised scale slaughter.  Known, by me, as the wild West's World War 1914 to 1945, with the interlude between 1918 and 1939.  20 million godless Communist Russians were slaughtered to help the Christian West defeat Nazism.  Nazism that came out of a Christian country, too!

I think it is unlikely that the Nazis would have risen to power if the West had not started the 1914 war.  The victors saw to it that vanquished Germany was treated without Churchill's much vaunted magnanimity.  German reparations meant that they had their noses rubbed in the dirt.  It was all a breeding ground for very angry, very patriotic, right wing, National Socialism.  Thus, the sequel in 1939.

We persist in thinking that the violent Communists and the violent Islamists are worse than ourselves because, quite naturally, we more carefully keep a record of their killings of us than that of our own of them - and, we never really like violence, of course; it is forced upon us!  In the last century, the 'Christian' Europeans even got their colonies to help in the slaughter to defend their mighty empires in the (so worthy) West's World War.

Hence, my boring and constant theme:- that I would like - shock horror - to hear, occasionally, a Christian preacher exhorting their flock to avoid arms manufacturing and the armed forces when it comes to a job.  Actually, I did hear Tony Campolo (on Friday 6 Sept at B'ham Christian Centre) do just that in the context of President Obama wanting to punish Syria for using chemical weapons in August.  Praise the Lord - and pass the ammunition!**

NOTES *"Ralph Miliband was a supporter of Marxist ideology that was being used to run governments in other parts of the continent and other parts of Europe which was responsible for an awful lot of terrible things, including millions and millions of deaths."  (Jon Steafel, Dep Editor of Daily Mail, on 'Newsnight', BBC2 on 1 October 2013)

** Christians might only vote for political parties that try non-violence or, at least, non-aggression and who abide by Security Council wishes or UN resolutions.  That means, for me, voting for none of the major three war parties.  Therefore, abstaining. 

Scotland's independence might just cut England down to size - but I doubt it!!

Scotland: Stop subsidising England's excesses.  Get your independence, Scotland!

I know that, from the opinion polls, Scotland distancing itself further from England seems a hopeless cause.  However, for what it's worth, these are my:  interesting/alternative/tendentious/horrifying/warped (delete as you wish)
thoughts on why I think Scotland would be sensible to separate from England and be its own sovereign nation within the EU and UN instead of the UK.

The big-hearted Scots* are subsidising London as the hub of the UK with continuing plans for Heathrow expansion, the very expensive Cross Rail and Thames Link project that opens in 2019 and, last year's London Olympics.

After more than one hundred years of an "essentially a Victorian rail network" (Chief Executive of Network Rail, Sir David Higgins on 8 January 2013 on the 'Today' programme), England has decided, rather late in the day, to modernise it, with the Scottish taxpayer helping to foot the bill.  Does Scotland have even one Victorian signal box?  England has 500 dating back to Queen Victoria and 300 are 1960s vintage! (same interview)

The Scots subsidised HS1 and, now, they generously help us out with HS2 that, again, gets nowhere near Scotland, even when fully completed.

Scotland should be most upset at subsidising England's armed conflicts on 23 nations since 1945 (Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' slot in the 'Today' programme.  Repeated, on another occasion, without disagreement from the other team members, by the Green Party panellist on Radio 4's 'Any Questions').**

No doubt, there are some in the English Defence League calling for pre-emptive, unmanned drone attacks of self defence on the Muslim militant extremists before they kill another of our brave soldier heroes.  Heroes home in barracks, on leave from protecting the people of Afghanistan from the real killers.  Scotland should disassociate itself from this barbarity by no longer funding England's unappreciated occupation of, and drone attacks on, foreign lands (a total of thirteen years, in punishment for 9/11, when we finally leave Afghanistan in 2014).

Scotland provides a most convenient haven for England's submarines carrying its independent nuclear deterrent. The Clyde Trident workers might be redeployed in future proofing your nation from the accelerating, enhanced greenhouse effect and the exhaustion of the planet's oil and gas reserves. The subs and nuclear missiles might be sent off to Barrow to give employment to the English, who will be left with digging a little deeper into their pockets with the Scottish taxpayer no longer bailing them out.

With independence, Scotland would no longer be contributing to the very many billions of pounds for the replacement for the Trident subs. Preliminary work on the replacement began when either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown was PM.

Scotland's power from water, wind and sun could be used just for themselves or sold to the English at great expense! A golden chance for you Scots to become Great Scot - instead of the phrase being used simply as an exclamation! Great Britain, minus Scotland, would be just a little less 'Great' and a little less able to act, in tandem with the US, as the continuing great power and policeman around the world to get its way.

We English, have such an over-inflated view of our importance to the nations of the world, that we cannot possibly do without Scotland to enhance our prestige and weight! Without Scotland, how can we possibly continue to punch above our weight in the world?  Even more crucially, the US might not regard us quite so highly with only little Wales and littler N Ireland in tow.  Our special relationship might be that little less special without Scotland.

For us English, all this independence malarkey is diminishing our size and greatness. Great Scot, it might even threaten our place as a permanent member of the Security Council. We certainly can't have that!

Let Scotland raise its own taxation for its own spending - that is all independence is - like the fifty other countries that have gained their independence from London since 1945 "and not one has expressed an interest in coming back under London's control." Alex Salmond on 21 May 2013 on 'Today'.

I think, Scotland's taxation is essential for England to continue to fund her excesses; it also makes her also responsible for the UK's most unfortunate, aggressive, domineering and provocative foreign policy in Muslim lands.  That certainly is an excess, to put it mildly!

Tim Weller

* "Over the last thirty years, in every single one of these last thirty years, Scotland per head contributed more in taxation than the UK average.  So that does indicate the financial and the potential financial strength goes over a long period of time."  Alex Salmond interview on the 'Today' programme, 21 May 2013.

** "Since 1946, the UK has engaged in more armed conflict than any other country with a total of 23 if you include Libya.  Do we conclude from this that we are a nation of warmongers or, a country that values peace and justice?"  Rhiddian Brook on Thought for the Day on 25 March 2011.

Remembering what went wrong over our so virtuous military intervention in Iraq

This is written ten years on since London was awash with 1-2 million opponents of our nation's intention to attack, invade and occupy Iraq.  "Britain's biggest ever political protest"  (Andrew Murray in the Guardian 15.2.2013).  This blog has partly relied on that article (here, in double quotation marks) to catalogue the many blunders of those who should have been men and women of integrity and honour.  Instead, I think, they became war criminals and terrorists.

1. Iraq is steeped in history.  It is the birthplace of civilisation.  Indeed, the birthplace of Abraham who was the father/founder of three world faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Even so, they are at loggerheads and, there is an absence of understanding or even respect amongst them.  Each faith believes that it alone has the Truth and Right on their side.
2. There was an over reliance on what the enemies of Saddam Hussein were saying about his weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  An over-reliance because he was no longer our friend but was our enemy by this time.
3. An under-reliance on finding the evidence for WMD before the attack commenced on the 19 February 2003.
4. Our crime of aggression in attacking Iraq seems to have been about finishing the job from the Gulf War of 1990/1, when we failed to remove Saddam Hussein and had been kicking ourselves ever since for not doing so.
5. Saddam was no friend of Al-Qaeda, not an Islamist or militant Muslim and, he governed a secular state.  Yet, it was widely believed that he was, in order to help justify attack, regime change and occupation by ourselves - and retribution for 9/11!
6. The UN inspectors were not allowed to finish the job before our premature and over-enthusiastic desire for the opening shock and awe attack.  Unseemly haste, sidelining, even dismissing our own, Western, weapons inspectors.  They didn't come up with what we wanted them to say, so we went ahead anyway before their final and definitive report confirming that there were almost certainly no WMD.
7. The UN did not "give the attack a patina of legality." Andrew Murray (patina = shallow covering or cosmetic gloss)
8. The war did not make the Christian West safer from terrorism.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  We saw martyrdom videos showing that the martyrs saw themselves as soldiers defending Islam from the Christian Western attackers and occupiers of holy Muslim soil.
9. The Iraqi people did not welcome the invaders as liberators.
10. "Tony Blair was motivated solely by his secret pledges to stand by President Bush come what may."
11. "Consideration of legality and British public opinion scarcely registered with him."
12. "The Iraqi people have paid a staggering price" for the unwarranted and unlawful eight year war.
13. "The war was justified by the dodgy dossier" and a student's dissertation.
14. Justified by: "The 45 mins Iraqi missile threat."
15. There was "Duplicitous diplomacy."
16. Saddam Hussein - a one time ally and excellent customer of our highly valued arms industry and traders.
17.  This man and many tens of thousands of his citizens were wiped off the face of the map without a trial for him or, UN support for such extra-judicial killing by ourselves.
18. Even after Saddam was removed from power and we were in total control throughout the country, still no WMD could be found.  In other words, we were completely fooled and our intelligence experts and politicians proved, yet again, to be in the wrong.  They were led up the garden path.  They are guilty and were gullible.  They are war criminals.

The problem of Israel - an outpost of the loathed USA

The problems that I have with Israel are these:

As last night's film showed, it is a mirror copy of the West, in particular the USA from whom it gets so much funding and enthusiastic support from the powerful Israeli lobby in the corridors of power.  There are many US companies in tiny Israel.  I feel the UK is the 51st state of the US and Israel is the 52nd.  Both countries are swift to carry out the wishes of
the USA in the Middle East.  As a result, both the UK and Israel incur the wrath of the vast majority of the populations of the Middle East who are horrified by the West's and Israel's attack, invasion and occupation of first Afghanistan from 7 October 2001 and then Iraq from the 19 March 2003.  I include Israel with the West and NATO because, as I say, it looks and feels like a very powerful Western nation.  They even speak the most impeccable English, too!

While Israel continues, by its own tragic admission in last night's film, to be "surrounded by enemies", it is a failed state.  It can make the desert bloom but it cannot turn enemies into friends.  It cannot turn the victim mentality of the Palestinians into bosom buddies.  "It is more blessed to give than to receive" is beyond its comprehension.  It simply takes yet more land in the West Bank for itself, feeling that is fair enough when it gave up Gaza.  But that was without the agreement of any Palestinian.  And what was left behind was razed to the ground to prevent the hated Palestinians from benefiting in any way!

In addition, the abysmal track record of who does the most killings puts Israel at the top of the league.  Its might is right, shoot first ask questions later tactic means it simply ratchets up the loathing.  The occasional extra-judicial killings by Mosad don't exactly help, either.  Those of us who want to be proud of Israel, continue to observe their answer of aggression to every problem, in utter amazement at such a foolish and counter-productive policy.  For them, it is always war, war and never jaw, jaw.  Lots of military aggression against the Lebanese and Palestinians but not lots of talking or acts of sacrificial giving or sharing of the land.  Now, threats against Iran to wipe their nuclear installations off the face of the earth.  No balance of terror is allowed by Israel; only they are allowed to place Iran and Syria under the threat of nuclear annihilation, with the blessing of the USA.  All their wars have got them absolutely nowhere.  It has not given them the peace and security that other Western nations enjoy.  Israel and the West are not respected by so many in the Arab world.

Yet, knowing all of this, many evangelical Christians look upon Israel as the apple of God's eye.  It doesn't say much for God!