The statement from Columbia Theological Seminary in the previous entry included this section,  which summarizes and expresses much of the opposition I feel to the “rush to action” that the Bush crew seems to hell bent on pursuing.

“Finally, pursuing the security of persons in the United States at the expense of basic human freedoms, including the right to life of those who have done nothing to provoke attack, is not only an unreasonable and unwise goal, but has the potential to stand in conflict with the good news of a gospel made manifest in Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Our security does not and cannot rest in our own efforts; even our best efforts, for all such efforts are doomed to failure. Instead, our security rests in the hands of a God strong enough to defeat death and loving enough to return to those who condemned him, offering salvation instead of condemnation. We asked ourselves, “Can we gain the type of security our national administration suggests it can deliver to us through war?” And if so, ought we desire it? We believe that the answers to both questions are No. “

The thing that bothers me,  and seems to bother the writers of the section quoted above,  is that we are wagering quite a bit of assured suffering and death on the “theories” of how we think things will play out,  if this or if that.  Of course,  to the proponents of “quick military pre-emptive action”,  these costs do not seem to bother them quite enough.  After all,  the lives we are talking about here are lives in Iraq.  This is disgusting to me how so many in this “Christian nation” so quickly and easily jump on the bandwagon and advocate movin’ on in and kickin’ some butt.