US churches seek peaceful Iraq strategy (BBC)
No rush to war, says Blair (BBC)
One of the great things about this article is the picture of Blair. It's actually a good photo; shows his eyes clearly and casts him in a decisive pose. But the caption reads, Blair: Anti-war marchers should listen to both sides.
Now, begging the Prime Minister's pardon, I think that many, most, and perhaps all anti-war protesters realize that--
Perhaps I should direct my remarks at BBC's Online Photo Editor UK.
Nonetheless, Mr. Blair owes some attention to poll numbers. While pointing out the better support projections for a UN-endorsed war via second resolution, the Prime Minister, like his American executive counterpart, overlooks the fact that one of the UN's primary functions is to prevent wars, not endorse them. Of course we can expect the UN to put off warfare as long as possible. As Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells, noted
Perhaps what the Pope should tell Mr. Blair is that the churches have learned this lesson. The Roman Church long ago learned the lessons of overextending authority. Now the Mother Church looks on, horrified by a chaotic, secular world that would have left the Inquisitors gasping. What the Pope should tell Mr. Blair is that no matter how right or correct a head of state might think he is, he can only defy the people so far. No matter how right this war seems to British and American executives, international and domestic antiwar sentiments cannot be ignored. The process has already seen a dramatic shift in American foreign policy ("Bush Doctrine"), and you have to think that when American Christians and the current steward of one of history's greatest scourges want their two cents heard, the situation is about to get even more interesting.
Christian churches are now rising to the challenges of the times. I feel obliged to acknowledge their efforts, especially in light of the flak I give them. And it is worth noting that this, at the very least, is what I expect of them. I would much rather lend them my hopes than my fears.
Notes:
° Blair's "personal rating"--I'm assuming a result of -20 is a poor one, given the comparisons offered in the BBC article. However, I'm hoping someone can give me a better idea of what it means. In the US, we use an unofficial stat called "Approval Rating", which breaks opinion into four or five categories and assigns a percentage of folks who "approve" of the president's handling of things; thus, all approval ratings are positive numbers, percentages. I have no idea what "-20" is supposed to tell me, other than it is better than -23 and worse than +21.
thanx,
Tiassa
I post this in consideration of any number of topics that have speculated on the worth of religions. Simply, Never let it be said that churches aren't occasionally good for something.
No rush to war, says Blair (BBC)
Seriously, I'd love to listen in on that conversation. Blair and the Pope--makes you wonder what George Carey is thinking.
One of the great things about this article is the picture of Blair. It's actually a good photo; shows his eyes clearly and casts him in a decisive pose. But the caption reads, Blair: Anti-war marchers should listen to both sides.
Now, begging the Prime Minister's pardon, I think that many, most, and perhaps all anti-war protesters realize that--
--and find this condition simply inadequate to warrant an aggressive war. Furthermore, I would submit to the distinguished gentleman of Downing Street that, living on the other side of the pond--the U.S.--we must bear in mind that "we are either with" the war, "or against" it. Thus it is my obligation to remind the Prime Minister that the Hawks owe the Doves a serious listening.
Perhaps I should direct my remarks at BBC's Online Photo Editor UK.
Nonetheless, Mr. Blair owes some attention to poll numbers. While pointing out the better support projections for a UN-endorsed war via second resolution, the Prime Minister, like his American executive counterpart, overlooks the fact that one of the UN's primary functions is to prevent wars, not endorse them. Of course we can expect the UN to put off warfare as long as possible. As Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells, noted
But from American churches to the Pope himself and even Blair's own Anglican bishops there comes the call for a peaceful resolution. Public support has plunged; The Guardian suggests Blair's approval numbers at -20°, opposition to war at 52%, and open support for an invasion "now" at 29% (see referenced BBC article).
Perhaps what the Pope should tell Mr. Blair is that the churches have learned this lesson. The Roman Church long ago learned the lessons of overextending authority. Now the Mother Church looks on, horrified by a chaotic, secular world that would have left the Inquisitors gasping. What the Pope should tell Mr. Blair is that no matter how right or correct a head of state might think he is, he can only defy the people so far. No matter how right this war seems to British and American executives, international and domestic antiwar sentiments cannot be ignored. The process has already seen a dramatic shift in American foreign policy ("Bush Doctrine"), and you have to think that when American Christians and the current steward of one of history's greatest scourges want their two cents heard, the situation is about to get even more interesting.
Christian churches are now rising to the challenges of the times. I feel obliged to acknowledge their efforts, especially in light of the flak I give them. And it is worth noting that this, at the very least, is what I expect of them. I would much rather lend them my hopes than my fears.
Notes:
° Blair's "personal rating"--I'm assuming a result of -20 is a poor one, given the comparisons offered in the BBC article. However, I'm hoping someone can give me a better idea of what it means. In the US, we use an unofficial stat called "Approval Rating", which breaks opinion into four or five categories and assigns a percentage of folks who "approve" of the president's handling of things; thus, all approval ratings are positive numbers, percentages. I have no idea what "-20" is supposed to tell me, other than it is better than -23 and worse than +21.
thanx,
Tiassa