Christian leaders urge action on Iran
On the eve of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad address to the UN, a group of conservative evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders submitted a letter to members Congress urging them to toughen up their stance on Iran. The group, which calls itself “Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, includes Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Southern Baptist Convention chairman Johnny Hunt, Charles Colson of the Prison Fellowship Ministries, Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Michael Youssef of Leading the Way, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Gary Bauer of American Values, and John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio.
The letter to Congress states:
We urge your immediate action to address Iran’s program to develop and deploy nuclear weapons by imposing economic sanctions on foreign companies that: export refined petroleum products, including gasoline, to Iran; help maintain Iran’s domestic refining capacity; provide ships or shipping services to transport such products; underwrite those shipments; or finance or broker those shipments. The U.S. should also immediately initiate a boycott of any arms sales to Iran.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top48 Comments to “Christian leaders urge action on Iran”
What? No sig from Jeremiah Wright? Jim Wallis of Sojo? Or the Hawaiian shirt dude from Saddleback?
Report comment to moderator
Jeremiah Wright should sit down and talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But honestly, how could he stand being in the same room with such a shrill strident inflexible hater of all that the USA stands for and proclaims in the modern world?
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to argue against Iran’s nuke program when we give our tacit support to Israel’s nuke program. If these Christian leaders really want to move the debate forward perhaps they should demand that Israel abandon its nuke program and fight for a nuke free Middle East.
Report comment to moderator
Get ready for $7 gas and anything else we can do for Israel. Then look in the mirror. The anti-Zionist you see there is Hitler. Admit it, and repent. If you’re not a Christian neo-con, you might as well add your picture to the hall of shame at the Holocaust Museum.
Don’t pay no attention to hypothetical visits between Jeremiah Wright and Ahmadinejad. The only visits that matter are the potential visits you could have with Palestinians and Israelis. The Americans I know, including Jewish Americans, would come away from those meetings liking the Palestinians better. That’s the untold story behind America’s partiality to the state of Israel.
Report comment to moderator
Nice try Scroop, but it’s the liberals around here that would be happy to see gas go to $10 a gallon (better for the environment ya’ know). And it seem to me that sit-downs, even hypothetical ones, would go much better if one of the parties were not so committed to wiping the other off the map. As long as terrorist organizations, rabid mullahs or nut cases like Ahmedinejad are running the show, sit-downs are going to be problematic.
Many religious leaders on the far right are so hyperbolic that it’s hard to know if or when to ever take them seriously, but we’re probably due for some more stringent sanctions toward Iran. At the same time, we should likewise punish nations and even individual companies that go through the back door to get Iranian oil, then re-sell it on the market.
The economy, national security, and energy are all tied together. This is just one more reason that energy is more urgent than healthcare reform and should have been given higher priority.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, had they wanted a great deal of land and peace with Israel, the Arabs and the “Palestinians” shoulda took what they had on the table in ‘48. But nooooooooooo.
And just who occupied the “Occupied Territories” from 1948 to 1967? Why no call for that to become Palestine during all that time? For the muslims, there is no glory in achieving anything by peaceful diplomatic negotiations. That sorta explains the psychology behind the PLO rejection of the Oslo concessions.
This pastor’s letter story is small potatoes anyway. The big shocker to me was hearing Zbigniew Brezinski (who did such a super job as Carter’s foreign policy point man) say the USA should shoot down any Israeli fighter jets headed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.
Denying airspace to Israel? When the IDF is doing the job the Sunni/Wahabbi Arabs privately want to see done to the Shiite heretics??!
Report comment to moderator
#2 Sawgunner
I really don’t enjoy standing up for Rick Warren, but…
He doesn’t take many positions on political things. Is this appropriate for a pastor?
When I taught, public school or Sunday School, I tried not to talk politics. Many people stop hearing what is said about the subject being taught.
Report comment to moderator
#3 No one has ever ever stayed up late at night unable to sleep because the Jews have the bomb. Its a democratic secularized liberal welfare state and yet American like-minded progressive folks continue to despise it and deny anything good has ever come from it. Tiny Israel has how many Nobel prizewinners? And the Arabs with all that oil wealth (which could pay for and does pay for Saudi schooling from kindergarten on up to PhD) have how many Nobels?
The angry oppressed Arab “man on the street” has far bigger problems than a country the size of Connecticut with the bomb which their democratic leaders will never use.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Bob Buckles, I applaud you. Other than abortion (I think Scripture supports a proLife view un-ambiguously) I tend to believe pastor’s should be apolitical. But even Dietrich Bonhoffer spoke up when NOT speaking up became morally indefensible.
But I’m with you. As a soldier I’ve told others in uniform they arent paid to hear my political views and I’m not paid to hear theirs. And I would hate to attend a worship where the pulpiteer rants about more govtal antipoverty programs, unilateral disarmament or abolishing the death penalty. Partisan ideologues shouldnt be ministers and vice versa. But serving His Kingdom often requires us to denounce the evil in this one wherever we see it, no?
Report comment to moderator
I’m a bit miffed that no one asked who the “he” was I was alluding to in post #2. Reminiscent of the cartoon showing the words “Honey have you seen my makeup?” in a speech bubble coming up from the Neverland ranch. Ambiguity intended!
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner #6,
I heard that Bush had also denied airspace to Israel to knock out Iranian nuclear targets. But this is the first time I’ve heard anyone say we should actually shoot down Israeli fighter jets. That seems a little extreme to me, but if they invade airspace without permission, what is the alternative? A slap on the wrist after the fact? I don’t know, just asking.
Report comment to moderator
What does this have to do with Jesus?
Report comment to moderator
#10 Sawgunner
“I’m a bit miffed that no one asked who the “he” was I was alluding to in post #2. “
I assumed that the “he” referred to the subject, Jeremiah Wright, of the sentence. Grammar was taught in CA public schools in the 1950s. 20 years ago my wife couldn’t find a grammar class at Long Beach State College, the largest college west of the Mississippi.
Report comment to moderator
dj: I’d be happy to see gas at $20, but not this afternoon when I fill up, and not without preparation. The interstate/big box economy is God’s blessing upon the Republican party, not mankind. I’d be happy not to think that my grand kids will have to think up ways to apologize for me to my great grandkids.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe they think Jesus is a conservative evangelical.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s hard to argue against Iran’s nuke program when we give our tacit support to Israel’s nuke program.”
No it’s not.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s much harder to argue that Israel shouldn’t have a trump card in the face of acute chronic Islamic threats.
Report comment to moderator
In fact, I think it an extremely naive view that Israel should only have nukes if all the countries in that area have them… I trust Israel with the nukes. I darn sure don’t trust Iran, or Iraq, or…
Report comment to moderator
MICHELLE: Perhaps Jesus’ words as recorded in Matt. 24: 3-14? What do you think?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
SM: The artical is about Iran. You didn’t mention it but can you refere me to any statements from Israel that suggests its determination to wipe Iran off the face of the earth? It would be a big help to me if you would. Thanks.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
I thought Christian leaders ONLY cared about abortion and homosexuality!
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson wrote; “It’s hard to argue against Iran’s nuke program when we give our tacit support to Israel’s nuke program.”
If Iran had a nuclear program and Israel did not, there would be no Israel (Iran’s top leaders have already even directly threatened and called for Israel’s annihilation, explicitly). Israel does have a nuclear program and Iran has not in recent times, and there is still an Iran.
That’s the crux of the argument, if you are willing to face it honestly.
Report comment to moderator
And Israel. The trifecta.
Of course that’s an over-simplification. But those are the 3 issues I vote most likely to get a perfectly good Christian castigated as a non-Christian for voting Democrat in any given national election.
Report comment to moderator
It is SO sad that people don’t understand what it is that the Muslims want. It ain’t property.
I think I’ll go have a Soda.
Report comment to moderator
Hawks in Israel are already arguing for a preemptive nuclear strike. I think there’s very little doubt that the odds on favorite for the worlds next use of nuclear weapons is an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran.
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearariel3890624.html
How in the world is a nuclear armed Israel in the best interests of the United States?
Report comment to moderator
#17 The bomb is a good weapon if you find yourself being attacked by uniformed soldiers or airmen riding in armored vehicles, tanks, jets, helicopters.
Against such an attack Israel holds the ace card.
But no one these days really believes the Arab nations surrounding Israel–esp after all the conventional battlefield DEFEATS they’ve received from the Israelis–would ever do a Saddam attacking Kuwait type attack against Israel.
What the Israelis have done with ADA is probably beyond our wildest imagination.
A conventional nationa against nation war launched against Israel? Not do-able by the woefully unprofessional underpaid and laughable Keystone Kop militaries of the Arab middle east. Before Israel would begin to lose the conventional fight (which they’ve never lost) they would pull the ace card from the hat band.
You’d like to think that neither side would use nukes should a conventional attack ever happen again. Downwind radiation would be disastrous even for the winners
Report comment to moderator
When the IDF is doing the job the Sunni/Wahabbi Arabs privately want to see done to the Shiite heretics??!
I can’t say, never having been invited for a chat aboard Prince Bandar’s Cowboys-themed A320.
But I imagine he has taken the the preachers for a ride, and you.
What’s Bandar going to do for us, after we gratify his wants in the eternal conflict of sect vs. sect, clan vs. clan, father vs. uncle, brother vs. brother. Would it even matter that much to the cosmopolitan prince?
When Iraq shuts down Hormuz, (which it would) Bandar wouldn’t be able to pump another drop without risking his jet and his gas money.
Report comment to moderator
“When Iraq shuts down Hormuz, (which it would)…”
Ummmm.. I’m no middle east expert, but don’t you mean Iran?
Report comment to moderator
RN: Waiting.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
“I think there’s very little doubt that the odds on favorite for the worlds next use of nuclear weapons is an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran.”
If I were a betting man, and all things being equal (Iran and Israel both have nukes) I wouldn’t blink an eye before betting Iran would use them first…
Report comment to moderator
“Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran”
Oh, brother! What Christian leaders should be for is a Mullah-Free Iran.
Report comment to moderator
The last time Israel did a pre-emptive strike, it didn’t use nuclear weapons. If anyone understands being annihilated, I think they do.
Report comment to moderator
#29
Roger, what are you waiting for?
Did you post a question, or address a comment to me in some other thread? There is nothing in this thread to account for your question that I can see.
Report comment to moderator
Here are a couple links discussing the possibility of a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran.
The first one, from early in 2007, discusses a plan for a nuclear strike. (Note: the existence of a plan does not mean that it will be carried out, or that it is even likely to be carried out). The report, if it was deliberately planted by the Israelis, may have been “intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.”
Israel’s possible plan for a nuclear strike on Iran
The following recent article says that a nuclear strike is “unlikely.”
Could Israel strike Iran over nuclear concerns?
From the first article, note that Israel would use “mini-nukes”, one-fifteenth the size of the Hiroshima bomb, if they indeed carry out a preemptive nuclear strike. Also note that the bombs should go off deep underground and would be intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, rather than cities as was the case in the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A preemptive nuclear strike should be a last resort, but if it’s needed, well then it’s needed. Israel has a right to defend itself.
Israeli possession of nuclear weapons is absolutely in the U.S. interests. An Israeli nuclear strike is not like an Iranian nuclear strike: Israel’s goal is defense while Iran’s is obliteration of Israel. Israel is a friend of the U.S. and freedom, Iran is not. Short of a nuclear strike, Israeli possession is a deterrent to Arab attacks. As Ehud Barak said, “Israel can lay waste to Iran.” Like MIM said, Israel should have a trump card.
Report comment to moderator
#34
Using nukes–even ‘mini-nukes’— in a preemptive way would be very unwise. I think it would open a can of worms that might never close again. Preemptive strikes are dicey anyway, but putting any nuclear weapon in the category of acceptable usable weapons, especially preemptive weapons— is madness. Nukes have always been seen as a last defensive resort–never preemptive. And much of their effectiveness lies in the fact that they are never used. If that changes….well, the end is indeed near.
Report comment to moderator
RN @ 33: See post no. 20;
I would expect an answer without you usual smearing
and ridiculing of Christians and all things Godly.
Thank you
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
DJ: agreed.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
“Nukes have always been seen as a last defensive resort–never preemptive.”
Well that was kinda my point. Israel has a trump card that they would only use in a last resort kind of way. I sincerely doubt Iran would be nearly as responsible….
Report comment to moderator
#33
I would expect an answer without you usual smearing
and ridiculing of Christians and all things Godly.
#20 was not addressed to me.
I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe that statement is a smear or a ridiculing of Christians and all things Godly. It is a statement of belief in non-belief. It is just as much a statement of belief to say I am an a atheist or to say I am an agnostic or to say that I am a Christian.
As far as Israel and Iran goes, my ancestors were Jews in Eastern Europe. My grandparents were agnostics (or so I am told). Three of my siblings believe in God, one brother and I do not.
I was raised by parents who were confused about their religious beliefs to believe that the founding of Israel was a wonderful event for the Jews because of the Holocaust and the pogroms in Eastern Europe.
As I have become older, I have my doubts that the founding of Israel was wonderful, though I have no better solution, and now hat Israel exists, the best solution would be for the Arabs and the Iranians (who are Muslims but not Arabs) and the Israelis to learn to live with each other.
I personally have met many Iranians in the United States and generally had reasonably pleasant interactions with them. I see a distinction between individual Iranians and the Iranian government and I think many Iranians make a distinction between the United States government and individual Americans.
Report comment to moderator
Roger,
I don’t believe humans have a soul. I do not believe any of us will have any existence after our physical death.
Many people here believe they do have a soul and that they will exist after their physical death.
This is a difference of opinion. The answer is impossible to know for any of us until after we die.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, at times people have told me to go away and to stop posting comments at worldmagblog.
I am not a Christian. Generally, I follow Terms of Service and have a right to post comments here.
Do you want me to “go away?”
Report comment to moderator
#38
No, an Ahmedinejad-led Iran would probably not be as responsible. The government seems quite implacable. It isn’t looking good for a strictly diplomatic solution; and increased sanctions on Iran are due.
Still, taking preemptive action is one thing, but taking preemptive action with nukes is just scary—and irresponsible. Using nukes preemptively cannot be accurately described as truly defensive, I think. But worst of all, it would erode the universal, unbroken pressure for restraint on other countries with nuclear weapons. If feeling threatened is a justifiable reason for a preemptive nuke, who’s to say Pakistan won’t be the next nation to feel threatened enough to use it. I think once the nukes are launched, it’s pretty much downhill from there.
Report comment to moderator
Iran a problem?
Too big for just 1 Trident submarine launch?
Hardly.
And if someone did launch someday, it won’t be due to a confirmatory verse in the New Testament.
The Armed Forces of the US do not place phone calls to the Amish for consultation concerning D-5 missile software parameter setups.
Neither do they plead for an o.k. from religious leaders who did a group-think after a Sunday afternoon buffet.
Yikes!
Report comment to moderator
As far as the leaders mentioned…
Was it a slow day?
Did they need some more things to do?
Did they think a fundraiser was needed for more nuclear carriers?
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2Ti 4:2)
:-O
Report comment to moderator
#44
Nah. They’re just getting a jump on election season hyperbole. And preparing conservative evangelicals for the next wave of election fundraisers and donation drives, while making sure that potential donors know that no matter how desparate the situation is, they’re on top of it.
Report comment to moderator
Though, I will say that the letter is not nearly as full of hyperbole as I would have expected it to be—coming from such a loooong list of evangelical leaders. And I even pretty much agreed with their recommnendation. Now that’s scary.
Report comment to moderator
I guess there are those that pay for the newest middle-east color chart, building the mental linkage that the bad-guy will be made to go away..
…since that’s what happened in the previous episode of CSI, during after-dinner, pie and coffee.
I do have to wonder whether this particular leader effort in this particular cause would be made, if no pennies were generated in any way, shape, or form.
Report comment to moderator
Benjamin Netanyahu is my hero. He speaks truth boldly and without fear. Here he blasts the racist, inept UN:
“To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. … Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” …”What a disgrace,” … “What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations.”
He accused the United Nations of remaining silent on attacks on Israelis from Hamas, and blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for its “twisted standards.”
“Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?” (ref)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!