Religious Left Opposes Pressure Against Iranian Nukes

Pages: 1 2

The Religious Left statement never mentions human rights in Iran.  And it does not propose alternatives in case diplomacy continues to fail.  Of course, it does not admit that potential threats of military force may strengthen diplomacy against Iranian mullahs not typically impressed by anything other than force.

Next month, the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly will consider a resolution opposing any even implied threats against Iran’s mullahs. It would place the 2 million member denomination on record opposing “preemptive military action by any nation against Iran.” And it calls for “direct, unconditional negotiations between the United States and Iran with the goal of… implementing a peaceful resolution.”  The proposed resolution, coming from Atlanta area Presbyterians, declares the church is “not confident, judging from past experience, that the U.S.A. has given sufficient thought… to the consequences of such an attack in Iran itself and across the Middle East.”

The Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons composed his own Iran policy, telling President Obama earlier this year, according to Presbyterian News Service: “The Christian tradition we share urges us to seek limits to violence and, therefore, requires us to oppose any rush to initiate another war in the Middle East.”  Parsons cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as reasons to be wary.  And he opined: “Negotiations do work. Look at the North Korean decision to suspend their nuclear program.”  Parsons also claimed that Just War teaching argues against any force against Iran.  The largely pacifist Religious Left’s understanding of the Just War tradition is that absolutely no situation would ever meet its impossibly exacting standards.

None of these churchmen discussed how a nuclear armed Iran might affect the Middle East and the world.  Nor did they even really express that much distress about Iranian nukes. In typical fashion, purported over reactions by the U.S. and Israel are the chief concerns.

The Religious Left does not have a very admirable history regarding Iran’s theocratic dictatorship.  Although often recalling the reputed U.S. role in restoring the Shah to power in 1953 as one of the century’s supposed great crimes, religious leftists almost never comment on the far more murderously tyrannical regime that replaced the Shah.  Even during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the U.S. National Council of Churches chastised the U.S. by praying America would “resume a more open views towards the needs and concerns of the Iranian people.”

The United Methodist Council of Bishops, at about the same time, confessed:  “We have committed grave sins against the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”  One bishop even visited Ayatollah Khomeini and afterwards pronounced that the “Islamic system is a democratic system founded on popular consensus.” An official from the church’s lobby office, called the Board of Church and Society, which has backed the recent letter against pressuring Iran, in 1980 even bailed out from jail and tried to provide bus transportation for pro-Khomeini Iranian student demonstrators in Washington, D.C.  “I know there are individuals in the Iranian power structure who do trust The United Methodist church,” one bishop boasted in 1981.  No doubt.

Churches are right to hope and pray for a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear situation. But the Religious Left once again demonstrates it has no moral authority when it villainizes the U.S. and Israel, while ignoring the Iranian theocracy’s over 3 decades of monstrous crimes, not to mention the nightmarish scenario of Iranian nukes. Members of Congress of both parties who live in the real world will rightly ignore the Religious Left’s foolish stance.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • BS77

    "Religious Left" is one of the prime oxymoronic terms of our time. Give me a break. Marxists and PC la la land liberals pretending to be pious…..Please!!!

  • SHmuel HaLevi

    Perhaps the fellowship in question, cult?, whatever, needs some simple words to clarify for them the prospects.
    Lets see if this Gaucho can handle this…
    A nuclear Iran is a mortal danger to my family and friends here in Eretz Israel. There is no need to extrapolate to judge the intents of Iran. Forget about cutting a fine slice and pretending the "the people" and the islamic clergy are not of the same mind. The nukes are or will be in the hands of the later. Consequently… and here comes the touchy part, anyone failing to earnestly work and succeed on preventing such event, fall within the cauldron of accomplice to Iran.
    It would be quite irrelevant if they are part of the Iranian elites or not. They all will face jeopardy in the extreme.
    Stop Iran or pay the consequences. There will be no accommodations. None.
    And while at it. Remove the 90 nuclear bombs Gates and Soetoro re allocated to Turkey. At Incirlik TAFB.

  • Chiggles

    Pacifists should not be allowed to vote.

  • H&R_ Barack


    ~ Jesus Christ's GOSPEL and ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE is the same Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,

    The Gospel of Salvation alters NOT for man's "traditions", his denominational sect, or philosophical belief.

  • Ghostwriter

    Why are the Religious Left doing this? Don't they know that the Iranian mullahs want THEM destroyed along with every other non-muslim on earth?

  • marios

    Presbyterian church has ties with muslims coutries and benefited by Oil $. They were one of the activists in BSD. They are against only democracy in ME Israel. So, no surprise they are for mullah's regime actually.
    it is unbelievable though, that knowing that Islamists kill 100,000 Christians each year they are still on side of those supremasists who will eventually kill them to if "Islam will dominate in the world".