WN: Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism - NewsMa

[Believer1997]

Sister,

Here is an excellent commentary about this whole issue and it addresses your question;

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODlkM...jk2NDZmYWZkYTc=

Read it before. It doesn't address all my questions - but I wonder if a Christian website is the place to ask them.

Are Christians not allowed to address or even comment on the issues of our day?

There is no personal attack against the President here. It is his policies that are being addressed.

Christians are, in my opinion, required to address and comment on the issues of our day. Those issues are critically important in our Walk and Growth in many cases. Oh, goodness - there are attacks a plenty on the President, his administration, his views, his wife, his vegetable garden, his clothing, his speech, his etiquette, his... everything .... Many of us have made snide (though somewhat amusing) comments and judgments about his views, behavior, etc. I'm trying to respect the Office and to stop having unkind thoughts about him - or anyone - It is somewhat difficult, is it not?

I don't think it's unkind to comment on his policies or the antics of this Administration at all. They are downright dangerous as this thread indicates and is also the opinion of Rudolph Giulianni, (which is my dogs name too ). Of course we are talking about the former Mayor of New York City and not my White Gemran Spitz.

Ah... if comments are not meant to enhance or advise or offer encouragement or direction, but instead are inflammatory, deprecating, disparaging and often patently false ... that could, at the very least be construed to be - unkind. I think it's a fine tribute to Rudolph Guilianni to name your dog for him...

[Matthitjah]

Sister,

Here is an excellent commentary about this whole issue and it addresses your question;

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODlkM...jk2NDZmYWZkYTc=

Read it before. It doesn't address all my questions - but I wonder if a Christian website is the place to ask them.

Are Christians not allowed to address or even comment on the issues of our day?

There is no personal attack against the President here. It is his policies that are being addressed.

Christians are, in my opinion, required to address and comment on the issues of our day. Those issues are critically important in our Walk and Growth in many cases. Oh, goodness - there are attacks a plenty on the President, his administration, his views, his wife, his vegetable garden, his clothing, his speech, his etiquette, his... everything .... Many of us have made snide (though somewhat amusing) comments and judgments about his views, behavior, etc. I'm trying to respect the Office and to stop having unkind thoughts about him - or anyone - It is somewhat difficult, is it not?

I don't think it's unkind to comment on his policies or the antics of this Administration at all. They are downright dangerous as this thread indicates and is also the opinion of Rudolph Giulianni, (which is my dogs name too ). Of course we are talking about the former Mayor of New York City and not my White Gemran Spitz.

Ah... if comments are not meant to enhance or advise or offer encouragement or direction, but instead are inflammatory, deprecating, disparaging and often patently false ... that could, at the very least be construed to be - unkind. I think it's a fine tribute to Rudolph Guilianni to name your dog for him...

One thing I learned a long time ago is that on discussion forums, be they Religious or secular, people are entitled to their opnions and as long as they remain civil on Worthy they will be allowed and even discussed.

Simply because you disgaree with the President or his policies does not mean that you are disparaging him.

Topics are going to be discussed, and discussed, and discussed again.

I will tell you this, as a servant here, that the whole point of the News section is to discuss the issues of our day with perspective towards our Faith. It tells us where we are in relation to God's prophetic time table and also leads us in a direction for prayer. Like it or not, President Obama is a hot topic of discussion in the news of the world as it pertains to our Faith.

Peace,

Dave

[Believer1997]

Yes... he is. All the more reason that we should be accurate beyond reproof in our posts and also more than ever, pray that when our words are opinion, they should be stated as merely that. We must remember that before anything else, we are Christians. Words have such awesome power at times.

Blessings.

[Matthitjah]

Yes... he is. All the more reason that we should be accurate beyond reproof in our posts and also more than ever, pray that when our words are opinion, they should be stated as merely that. We must remember that before anything else, we are Christians. Words have such awesome power at times.

Blessings.

Please then dear sister, Offer reproof rather than what you dislike.

I find sarcasm to be a useful tool at times it demonstrates the absurd.

[Believer1997]

Yes... he is. All the more reason that we should be accurate beyond reproof in our posts and also more than ever, pray that when our words are opinion, they should be stated as merely that. We must remember that before anything else, we are Christians. Words have such awesome power at times.

Blessings.

Please then dear sister, Offer reproof rather than what you dislike.

I find sarcasm to be a useful tool at times it demonstrates the absurd.

I dislike labels ... is that what you speak of? Sarcasm can be witty and well-placed and cruel and out of place. Absurd is subjective.... Or are we all required to think that what one finds absurd should be absurd to all?

[Matthitjah]

Yes... he is. All the more reason that we should be accurate beyond reproof in our posts and also more than ever, pray that when our words are opinion, they should be stated as merely that. We must remember that before anything else, we are Christians. Words have such awesome power at times.

Blessings.

Please then dear sister, Offer reproof rather than what you dislike.

I find sarcasm to be a useful tool at times it demonstrates the absurd.

I dislike labels ... is that what you speak of? Sarcasm can be witty and well-placed and cruel and out of place. Absurd is subjective.... Or are we all required to think that what one finds absurd should be absurd to all?

Nope, not at all.

However, we are required to be tolerant of other folks viewpoints and even opinions in a civil society. We don't have to buy into them but we certainly must be patient and try to hear what the other person is saying rather than react.

I often try to imagine all the nonsense Jesus dealt with, I mean just look who He hung out with. They all had a perspective and issues.

For some folks the outer court is a huge issue. I often advise them to stay out of there if they are likely to get riled up by it. For some folks the News section is an issue. For some it's the Doctrinal debates.

The one thing this Ministry is designed to do is to teach us how to deal with all the issues that we will encounter in the real world. We are going to have differing views even as Christians, but there is one that thing that unites us. Out in the world we are going to encounter folks that have differing views, we ought be able to discuss them without becoming immediately distracted by the content.

Peace,

Dave

[nikki1]

Uncovered Obama Statement

[rpfan76]

I saw Andrew Napolitano on Fox and he says that since congress never declared war on al-qaeda then the terrorists can't be tried by the military, according to the constitution. Japanese were during WWII but congress had declared war. He says that they can be tried by civilian court but it must take place in the district where the offence occurred. However since KSM was caught in Pakistan he must be tried in the first U.S. district he arrives in. Therefore the U.S. could try him anywhere they see fit as long as it has a civilian court. I may have misunderstood some of what he was saying but I think that was the gist of it.

[nikki1]

I saw Andrew Napolitano on Fox and he says that since congress never declared war on al-qaeda then the terrorists can't be tried by the military, according to the constitution. Japanese were during WWII but congress had declared war. He says that they can be tried by civilian court but it must take place in the district where the offence occurred. However since KSM was caught in Pakistan he must be tried in the first U.S. district he arrives in. Therefore the U.S. could try him anywhere they see fit as long as it has a civilian court. I may have misunderstood some of what he was saying but I think that was the gist of it.

Hi rpfan:

If this isn't a Declaration of War by Congress, I'd like to know what it is? Is this administration playing semantics? Or making up the rules as they go along until it's brought to light?

JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORISTS

September 14, 2001

This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Blessings,

Nikki

[rpfan76]

I was just relaying what the man said. He said it, take it up with him. On a side note I'm not a judge or lawyer but I have read that the Joint Resolution that was posted is not a formal declaration of war.