was a Jewish martyr not a Christian saviour. Like numerous other
Jewish "insurgents" of his time, he sought to liberate the Jewish
people from the Roman Empire's brutal occupation of their country.
He did not die on a Roman cross for "the sins of the world" but
to rid the Jewish people's world of the sins of the Roman Empire,
which violated their nationality, occupied their country, and
crucified would-be messianic liberators, like Jesus, for political
sedition, and countless by-standers. (See "Report of the Ad Hoc
Scholars Group Reviewing the Script of The Passion," Dr.
Mary C. Boys, SNJM, et al, May 2, 2003.) Jesus died as a liberator
not as an evangelizer. His quoted mission was to empower people
not gain power over them. To revive the living, not resurrect
the dead. (Luke 4:18)
Christianity became the religion of the state and gained power
under Roman Emperor Constantine some 300 years later, there was
no need for Jesus' mission and model of liberator. In fact, Christians
joined the Roman Empire in oppressing the very Jews Jesus sought
to liberate - and, ironically, they did it "in Jesus name." And,
ironically today, descendents of the persecuted Jews are brutally
oppressing the Palestinians in the name of "Israeli security."
Oppression is often about religious - and political - entitlement
licensed by power.
Roman state legitimized and favored Christianity, Jesus' model
of liberator obviously became dangerous and had to be redefined
and concealed. It was now about authority and power: "spreading
the gospel" - in the imperialistic wake of state power. The liberator
became the evangelizer.
Salvation was re-interpreted as an individual matter, apart from
institutionalized political and economic realities that greatly
determine who, in the gospel words of Jesus, were "poor" and "oppressed"
and in need of "good news" and "liberty." (Ibid) "The Kingdom
of God" shifted from society to the soul, from this life to a
future life, from earth to heaven and hell. With Jesus' "love
your neighbor as yourself"-ethic applied mostly to like-minded
people and those to be "harvested."
lines of institutionalized Christianity became and, to a large
extent, remain authority and power. For Catholicism, it is reported
to still be about possessing the keys to the kingdom: "Pope Benedict
XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving
a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities
are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides
the only true path to salvation." ("Pope reasserts salvation comes
from one church," by Nicole Winfield, Associated Press, The
Boston Globe, July 11, 2007.)
For United Methodism, it is about "the conversion of the world.
All, of every age and station, stand in need of the means of grace
which it [the church] alone supplies." (The United Methodist
Book of Worship, 1992, page 106.) For various hierarchical
and "bibliarchical" churches, it is about maintaining and advancing
their institutions as they are. And, not surprisingly, the greatest
threat to their existence as ends in themselves is the historical
Jew, Jesus himself.
liberator has been transformed into an evangelizer, and confined
behind hierarchical and theological walls, in prayerful solitary
confinement. His torturous "extra-theological rendition" from
liberator to evangelizer, is especially seen in the careful protests
of Catholic and United Methodist leaders against the Bush administration's
criminal invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq.
early Christianity became the religion
of the state and gained power under
Roman Emperor Constantine some
300 years later, there was no need for
Jesus' mission and model of liberator.
In fact, Christians joined the Roman Empire
in oppressing the very Jews Jesus sought
to liberate - and, ironically, they did it
"in Jesus name." And, ironically today,
descendents of the persecuted Jews
are brutally oppressing the Palestinians
in the name of "Israeli security."
Oppression is often about religious -
and political - entitlement licensed by power.
powerful Christian leader to oppose the Bush administration's
looming pre-emptive war against Iraq was Pope John Paul II. Mainstream
media covered his opposition from beginning to prayerful end.
John Paul sent an emissary to meet with President Bush in an attempt
to avert the war. The emissary, Cardinal Pio Laghi, described
as "a friend of the president's father and the Vatican's first
ambassador to Washington," was also believed to have "brought
to the White House the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church."
He and Bush met privately for 40 minutes on Ash Wednesday, while
back in Rome the Pope "called on Roman Catholics worldwide to
fast and pray for peace." ("Pope's Emissary Meets with Bush, Calls
War Unjust," by Johanna Neuman, The Lost Angeles Times,
Mar. 6, 2003; "Bush meets with Vatican envoy," Associate Press,
cnn.com, Mar. 5, 2003.)
meeting, Cardinal Laghi was quoted as saying "that the two most
important things to the Vatican were 'avoiding a war and finding
a peaceful solution to the problem of Iraq's disarmament'." ("Bush
meets with Vatican envoy," Ibid) Laghi gave President Bush
"a letter in which the pope urged Bush to listen carefully to
the Vatican envoy. Neither the letter nor the envoy specifically
urged Bush to avoid war," according to an administration official.
The Los Angeles Times reported that "the cardinal said
the president told him he appreciated the pope's effort to find
a peaceful way out of the conflict," which evidently pleased Laghi
who was quoted as saying, "We are not at the end yet," and added,
"I'm going away with hope." ("Pope's Emissary Meets with Bush,
Calls War 'Unjust,'" by Johanna Neuman, Mar. 6, 2003.)
came 15 days later: President Bush ordered 21,000-pound "mother
of all bombs" and hundreds of cruise missiles to reign "shock
and awe" on Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Bush's expressed "appreciation"
for "the pope's effort to find a peaceful way out of the conflict"
was obviously for public prayerful consumption.
year, President Bush visited Pope John Paul II at the Vatican
and presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
During this White House-initiated occasion, the pope reportedly
"firmly reminded the president of the Vatican's opposition to
the invasion of Iraq last year," and said the country's "sovereignty"
needs to be restored and its "situation normalized" quickly, with
active UN involvement, "in conditions of security for all its
people." ("Pope Expresses Concern about Continuing Unrest in Iraq,"
by John Thavis, Catholic News Service, www.catholicherald.com,
media coverage of the seemingly scripted event appears to reveal
that both Pope John Paul II and President Bush were more concerned
about appearances than reality. The Associated Press reported,
"Seated next to the Pope, Bush promised his nation would work
for 'human liberty and human dignity,' without making any references
to Iraq." ("Bush Meets with Pope at Vatican," Associated Press,
Fox News.com, June 4, 2004.)
Then came the papal blessing: a Catholic News Service story stated,
"At the end of his talk, the pope assured the president of his
prayers [italics added] and invoked upon him God's blessings
of wisdom, strength and peace." ("Pope Expresses Concern about
Continuing Unrest in Iraq," by John Thavis, 6/3/2004.) The pope
must be rolling over in his grave and his god having a fit in
heaven - as Bush continues to "pray daily for peace." While even
now saying, the "US can still win in Iraq."
leaders appearing to play a game for public consumption to protect
the authority and power and special interests of their respective
institutions and constituents. Rather than accepting the often
merit-less, bribery-serving Presidential Medal of Freedom and
assuring President Bush of his prayers, Pope John Paul II could
have led a timely global interfaith peace pilgrimage to Iraq.
was re-interpreted as an
individual matter, apart from
institutionalized political and economic
realities that greatly determine who,
in the gospel words of Jesus, were "poor"
and "oppressed" and in need of "good news"
and "liberty." "The Kingdom of God" shifted
from society to the soul, from this life to
a future life, from earth to heaven and hell.
With Jesus' "love your neighbor as
yourself"-ethic applied mostly to like-minded
people and those to be "harvested."
also might have been a papal edict calling on Catholics to not
support or participate in a life-aborting war against Iraq. Just
as Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis reportedly "forbade"
2004 presidential candidate John Kerry "from taking communion
while campaigning in the area" for supporting a woman's constitutional
right to decide whether to have an abortion. ("Kerry's Communion
Controversy," by David Paul Kuhm, CBS News.com, Chief
Political Writer, CBS NEWS, April 6, 2004.)
Instead of real moral protest, Pope John Paul II took the pathway
of prayer, which is often a tried-and-true silent legitimizing
escape-hatch of accommodation and complicity. For a more detailed
study of Pope John Paul's opposition to the war, and that of other
Christian denominations as well, see Alberts' "Mainstream Religious
Leaders in Bushtime: Guardians of the Status Quo," CounterPunch,
Sept. 19, 2005.)
XVI appears to be following in Pope John Paul II"s prayerful footsteps.
"Celebrating his first Easter as pontiff," a news story reported
"he prayed today for peace to prevail over relentless violence
in Iraq." ("Pope prays for peace in Easter sermon," BREAKING NEWS.ie,
April 16, 2006.)
"In his Easter message this year," Benedict's publicized reference
to Iraq apparently consisted only of "lament[ing] that 'nothing
positive comes from Iraq torn apart by continual slaughter as
the civilian population flees.'" ("Pope Tells Bush of His Concern
About Safety of Iraq's Christians," by Michael A. Fletcher,
washingtonpost.com. June 10, 2007.)
In his recent,
assumed 30-minute meeting with President Bush, Pope Benedict was
quoted as "express[ing] concern about 'the worrying situation
in Iraq,' especially the deteriorating plight of Christians there."
Bush told reporters afterwards that "the pontiff was worried that
Christians in Iraq were being 'mistreated by the Muslim majority.'"(Ibid)
A classic example of blaming the victims instead of the criminality
of the Christian-professing invaders and occupiers. Bush was also
quoted as calling "his meeting with the pontiff 'a moving experience.
I was talking to a very smart, loving man,' he said." It also
was reported that "the Vatican has been critical of the US-led
invasion of Iraq, but both sides said they did not dwell on those
differences Saturday." (Ibid)
and the president exchanged gifts with Bush giving Benedict a
"'Moses stick' that was hand-carved by a former homeless man from
Dallas." It is "identical to one Bush owns [and] engraved with
the Ten Commandments." (Ibid)
A few weeks later Pope Benedict proceeded to give Jews the short
end of the "Moses stick": he authorized greater use of the old
traditional Latin Mass, which includes a Good Friday prayer calling
for the conversion of the very people who gave Christians the
An obviously outraged Anti-Defamation League president, Abraham
H. Foxman, was quoted as saying, "We are extremely disappointed
and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly
removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass,
that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting
words by praying for Jews to be converted." ("Pope Eases Restrictions
on Wider Use of Latin Mass," by Ian Fisher, The New York Times,
July 8, 2007.)
an instrument of liberation or of evangelism? Prayer as an avenue
to power or an escape route of passivity? Prayer as a means to
speaking truth to power or a way of leaving it up to one's god.
Prayer as concern or as cover? Two weeks before unleashing his
war of choice against Iraq, President Bush said at his March 6,
2003 press conference, "I pray daily. I pray for guidance and
wisdom and strength... I pray for peace. I pray for peace." (The
New York Times, March 7, 2003.) Prayer as a way of confronting
or conforming to oppressive institutional political or religious
powers? Prayer as complicity?
The aim here
is not to denigrate prayer but to show how it is used to avoid
risk and thus serve personal and institutional self-interests
and advancement. Prayer can lead to action against and not accommodation
to the oppression of people. It is a universal means by which
people find comfort, grace, the will to affirm their lives, to
achieve, to overcome, and empowerment to contribute to a just,
inclusive society and world.
is often another way of folding one's hands and doing nothing,
while giving the legitimizing appearance of being involved, which
is probably its greatest attraction to Christian institution-builders,
whose priority is evangelism not being "peacemakers." Thus Jesus'
risky liberation model is often kept in solitary confinement by
prayer. It is much easier and safer, and far more conducive
to denominational empire-building, to evangelize and then
control people than to join in liberating them and empowering
their right to believe as they choose and be who they are.
Just as much
is expected of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI because
of their great moral authority, United Methodists have a special
obligation to speak truth to power because President Bush and
Vice President Cheney are Methodists. Sadly, as with Catholicism,
the theological prison confining Jesus is also seen in the United
Methodist Church's measured protests against Bush and Cheney's
criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
various hierarchical and
"bibliarchical" churches, it is about
maintaining and advancing their institutions
as they are. And, not surprisingly,
the greatest threat to their existence
as ends in themselves is
the historical Jew, Jesus himself.
of 2005, 96 United Methodist bishops issued a belated carefully-worded
"Statement of Conscience" subtitled "A Call to Repentance and
Peace with Justice." Their generalized opening words were theologically
correct: "As followers of Jesus Christ, who named peacemakers
as blessed children of God, we call on The United Methodist Church
to join us in repentance and renewed commitment to Christ's reign
of compassion, justice, reconciliation and peace."
The 96 bishops
flirted with telling it like it is: "We repent of our complicity
in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation
of Iraq." But vagueness took over: "In the face of the United
States Administration's rush toward military action based
on misleading information, too many of us were silent." [italics
were appropriate: "We confess our preoccupation with institutional
enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are
sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people
needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable
disease is entrenched." But prophetic vagueness continued: "Although
we value the sacrifices of the men and women who serve in the
military, we confess our betrayal of the scriptural and prophetic
authority to warn the nations [italics added] that true
security lies not in weapons of war, but in enabling the poor,
the vulnerable, the marginalized to flourish as beloved daughters
and sons of God."
evidently could not help slipping in an evangelistic note: "We
confess our failure to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to be
people that welcome and love all those for whom Christ died."
Biblically-inspired, preachy generalities make up these United
Methodist bishops future commitment:
daily for the end of war in general and the Iraq war specifically;
...for the leaders of the United States [italics
added] that they will turn to truth, humility, and policies
of peace through justice.
the prophetic authority that calls nations, individuals
and communities [italics added] to live faithfully in
the light of God's new creation where all people know their
identity as beloved children of God; where justice rolls
down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream;...
ourselves to peacemaking as an integral component of our
own Christian discipleship, which means... modeling an end
to prejudice toward people of other faiths and cultures;
confronting differences and conflicts with grace, humility,
dialogue and respect without being so cautious in confronting
evil that we lose our moral authority [italics added].
then issued a call to "all United Methodists," which included,
"Let us object with boldness when governing powers offer
solutions of war that conflict with the gospel message of self-emptying
love." They ended on a myopic note: "Let us work toward unity
in a world of diversity, that all peoples will come to
know that we belong to one another and that "in Christ
God was reconciling the world to himself and entrusting the message
of reconciliation to us [italics added] (2nd Corinthians 5:19)."
(The above quotes are from the January 31, 2006 revision of the
96 bishops' November 8, 2005 "Statement of Conscience.")
Methodist bishops' "Statement of Conscience" offers a lesson in
evasiveness. "Let us object with boldness when governing powers
offer solutions of war that conflict with the gospel message of
self-emptying love." Which "governing powers?" "In the
face of the United States Administration's rush toward military
action based on misleading information..." Which "United States
Administration?" What "misleading information?" "We
confess our betrayal of the scriptural and prophetic authority
to warn the nations that true security lies not in weapons of
war." Why "which nations" when only "the United States Administration"
is so blatantly culpable? "Commit ourselves to peacemaking...
without being so cautious in confronting evil that we lose our
moral authority." What "evil"?
is the fact that those 96 leaders of the United Methodist Church
cannot even bring themselves to name the two men most responsible
for the unjust, horrific death and destruction visited upon the
people of Iraq and America: their own church members, President
Bush and Vice President Cheney.
a safe, generalized "Statement of Conscience?" United Methodist
bishops had to say something. Their church members rightly
expected prophetic leadership from them. Their Book of Discipline
contains a long-cherished belief on "War and Peace - We believe
war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ...
We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve
by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them."
("Social Principles," pages 123, 124.)
the liberator has been transformed
into an evangelizer, and confined
behind hierarchical and theological walls,
in prayerful solitary confinement.
His torturous "extra-theological rendition"
from liberator to evangelizer, is especially
seen in the careful protests of Catholic
and United Methodist leaders against
the Bush administration's criminal invasion
and brutal occupation of Iraq.
were expected to say something in the face of President Bush and
Vice President Cheney launching a falsely-based, unnecessary pre-emptive
war against sanction-weakened, non-threatening Iraq. A fear-mongering
war based on lies: Saddam Hussein had no "mushroom-cloud" threatening
weapons of mass destruction nor ties to the horrific 9/11 attack
against America as Bush and Cheney repeatedly charged, while belittling
and then aborting the work of the UN weapons inspectors by invading
A war and occupation devastating Iraq's life-sustaining infrastructure,
killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, triggering a
massive deadly civil war, forcing over four million Iraqis to
become refugees inside and outside their country, destroying and
crippling the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and wasting
greatly needed national resources. A war of choice Bush even justified
by saying, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is
God's gift to every man and woman in the world." ("Acceptance
Speech to Republican Convention Delegates," The New York Times,
Sept. 3, 2004.)
A war for oil and empire not freedom. A war protested world-wide
and condemned as "illegal" by UN Secretary General Kofi Anan because
it lacked UN Security Council approval.
The 96 United
Methodist bishops had to say something about a war President Bush
even now says, "I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we
must." ("White House Press Conference on Iraq: Bush Warns Terrorist
Threat to U.S. Will 'Outlast my Presidency,'" CQ Transcripts Wire,
washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007.)
And, "If we fail in Iraq," he warns, "the enemy will follow us
home." ("President Bush Discusses Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors, War on Terror at American Legion," Renaissance
Hotel, Washington, D.C., The White House Mar. 6, 2007.)
An immoral war driving Bush to "stay the course," for "failure"
in Iraq would result in his criminality following him home
to the White House. A war crying out for "A Statement of Conscience"
- especially from Bush and Cheney's own United Methodist hierarchy.
But why such
a safe statement from President Bush and Vice President Cheney's
own church leaders? Perhaps the 96 United Methodist bishops obvious
evasiveness is partly due to the pride certain bishops must have
felt after meeting months earlier with Bush and reporting him
saying, "I'm proud to be a Methodist." ("United Methodist bishops
meet with president, open door to future," Tim Tanton, United
Methodist News Service, May 3, 2005.) Another corrupting influence
may be the apparent anticipated prestige and power underlying
the movement within United Methodism to house the George W. Bush
library at Southern Methodist University.
reason for the 96 bishops' laboriously cautious "Statement of
Conscience" may be their attempt to control the consciences and
anti-war protests of morally outraged United Methodists. It is
here that Jesus' model of liberator and call for "peacemakers"
(Matthew 5:9) is believed to be confined: behind the bishops'
and United Methodism's own hierarchical walls.
hierarchical structure is assumed to keep the consciences of its
ministers - including its bishops. The United Methodist Book
of Discipline states that the Church's ministers are to "offer
themselves without reserve to be appointed and to serve,
after consultation, as the appointive authorities may determine."
[italics added] (p. 230).
and promotion of United Methodist ministers are determined by
the "appointive authorities" over them, i.e. their district superintendent
and bishop. This hierarchical power over ministers' appointments
and advancements is believed to exert considerable influence over
their consciences and greatly determine their social action behavior.
Ministers usually get ahead by getting along. And those most effective
in getting along and maintaining and advancing the institution
as it is often become bishops and district superintendents - with
The priority is often evangelism not equality, membership not
morality, building the church not human community, gaining power
not the empowerment of people. Thus bishops may be tentative about
rocking the Bush administration's ship of state, fearing constituents
will abandon their ship and board the deck of more evangelical
Similarly, ministers may hesitate to become involved in controversial
issues that would rock the denominational boat, fearing constituent
or community complaints to their "appointive authorities" could
prevent their own ship from coming in. With presidential candidates
rushing to embrace the same prayerful religiosity dictating the
behavior of the chaplains of the status quo. It is the politics
of religion that keeps religion out of politics - out of risky
One cannot have a hierarchy without a lowerarchy. And such hierarchies
are assumed to have an inherently corrupting influence. Jesus'
model of liberation and justice-doing is believed to often languish
behind such conscience-compromising hierarchical walls and related
"preoccupation with institutional enhancement."
is often another way of folding
one's hands and doing nothing, while giving
the legitimizing appearance of being involved,
which is probably its greatest attraction
to Christian institution-builders,
whose priority is evangelism not being
"peacemakers." Thus Jesus' risky liberation
model is often kept in solitary confinement
by prayer. It is much easier and safer,
and far more conducive to denominational
empire-building, to evangelize and then
control people than to join in liberating
them and empowering their right to believe
as they choose and be who they are.
A case in
point may be Jim Winkler, head of United Methodism's General Board
of Church and Society, the international public policy and social
justice agency of the Church. While not a minister, Winkler is
perhaps the key peace and justice leader in the denomination.
A strong early critic of President Bush, Winkler was reported
as having "launched a scathing attack on his preparations for
war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according
to the teaching of Christ'." Winkler was also quoted as saying,
"his church was 'keenly aware' that it counted the President and
his deputy among its members, and that he was therefore 'frequently
encouraged by others to be very careful about how I say things.'"
(Guardian Newspapers United, Oct. 20, 2002.)
96 United Methodist bishops, Jim Winkler was not "very careful."
Less than six weeks after their updated "Statement of Conscience,"
Winkler gave the keynote address at an ecumenical gathering in
Arlington, VA, is which he said, "Impeach President
Bush" [italics added]. He then spoke truth to power: "Yes
I said it. [italics added]. The attack on Iraq was sold to
our people on lies and the war itself was an illegal war of aggression."
Winkler continued, "The NSA spy program is unconstitutional. These
are actions far more serious than a failed land deal on the White
River or a sexual indiscretion with a White House intern." Winkler
was not through: "This is a president who says, 'I'm the commander,
I don't need to explain why I say things... Maybe somebody needs
to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like
I owe anybody an explanation'." (General Board of Church and Society,
www.umc-gbcs.org/timeline - GBCS Web site.)
evidently spoke truth too clearly to power for the United Methodist
hierarchy to handle. Three weeks later he muted his call to "impeach
President Bush," saying "I regret making that statement." He then
explained, "Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter of
impeachment, the call for it in the context of that address was
unnecessary... It has drawn quite a bit of attention... about
40 e-mails, mostly negative." Not that "the volume of e-mails"
determines Winkler's stand. But that "the call for impeachment
is a distraction from the task at hand - finding an alternative
to the 'war on terror'." ("Faith in Action," Weekly Digest from
GBCS, General Board of Church and Society, Word from Winkler,
"Regrets: Some things are better left unsaid," GBCS Website,
June 12-18, 2006.)
and state political bodies, peace organizations and anti-war activists,
some members of Congress, certain other politicians and government
officials, political and social scientists, members of the media
and an ever-increasing number of Americans and many in the world
community believe impeaching President Bush and Vice President
Cheney is "the task at hand." Impeachment is the way of
stopping their war of terrorism, and thus exposing the
so-called "war on terrorism" for what it is: a cover to justify
eliminating resistance to the imperialistic policies of the Bush
administration and its allies.
referred to himself as an "obscure church bureaucrat" who, along
with "millions of people around the world... saw and warned of
the disaster ahead." (Word from Winkler, "For Five Years," Faith
in Action, General Board of Church and Society, GBCS Website,
June 18, 2007.) Winkler was far from an "obscure church bureaucrat,"
which is why the United Methodist hierarchy and lowerarchy apparently
"encouraged" him to be more "careful about how I say things."
may become Jim Winkler's problem. He and other Christians, Muslims
and Jewish leaders are "call[ing] on all our communities of faith
to draw now on fasting as a pathway toward inner spiritual transformation
and outward social transformation." And they will also "encourage
local communities to be in prayer for peace and to take specific
actions through Thanksgiving weekend to stand together against
the war in Iraq and against all the ways in which violence is
destroying our communities." (Ibid)
that is believed to strike fear in the Bush administration's heart
is not fasting or prayer but impeachment. Jim Winkler had
spoken truth to power, and probably paid a heavy price for freeing
Jesus for a fleeting moment from hierarchical walls. It is past
time for United Methodist leaders and their congregations, and
other peoples of faith, to censure and call for the impeachment
of the very two United Methodists who are the most dangerous terrorists
in the world.
The world knows and is watching. Our children and grandchildren
will know. It is time to unlock Jesus' theological prison and
set him free by becoming justice-doers and "peacemakers." Time
to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney before they start a war with Iran in an attempt to distract
us from their criminality in Iraq. Time to stop evangelizing and
start liberating other people - and ourselves.
Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain, and a diplomate
in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both
a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has
written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war,
politics and religion. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The above article was posted at Counterpunch.org on August 25/26,