Watchtower Right?

by patio34 37 Replies latest social current

• 

  patio34

  It struck me this morning that the recent news that, in general, church-goers vote Republican and non-church goers (regularly that is) vote Democratic.

  If the majority of Republicans support President Bush and the invasion of Iraq and the majority of Democrats do not, then it would follow that the majority of church-goers are in favor of the invasion. And the non-churchers aren't.

  What struck me is odd is the Watchtower teaching that Christians, in general, are inclined to be warlike (a polite term). Why would that be?

  Then it struck me about the morality of the whole invasion. The lynchpins of the rationale seem to be pretty much unproven (WMD). So, church-goers, what about the morality of invading a country, bombing them with clusterbombs that leave landmines for their innocent children to be killed by, using depleted-uranium on them, killing thousands of them (Colin Powell doesn't keep track but others do), maiming them, and then giving rich contracts to the invading and conquering country. Is that moral, ethical? And to continue to support all these actions in light of the subsequent facts?

  Maybe others see it differently and may have the underlying feeling that if they admit it was hasty to invade a country, then they may have to admit to the immorality of it, I don't know.

  I realize this is a public board and my question may inflame others, but I really just want to make that observation tying the Watchtower teaching with this situation. I, of course, don't think the Watchtower is a "true religion," but do see irony there.

  I offer this just as speculation and would appreciate any responses to be respectful of another viewpoint.

  Dissent is Patriotic,

  Pat
• 

  Gopher

  I think the Watchtower teaches that all religion aside from its own, that they term "Babylon the Great", is bloodguilty. They quote the scripture in Revelation that says "in her was found the blood of all the prophets and all that have been slaughtered on the earth".

  However they say Christendom is PARTICULARLY bloodguilty because they (of all the major religious categories) claim to represent the prince of peace, Jesus Christ.

  Of course, this is notwithstanding the fact of their investment in that war-equipment manufacturer named RandCam.

  Anyhow, as to the Democratic vs. Republican thing here in America, it used to be the Democrats who were viewed as the warriors. The Democratic presidents JFK and Lyndon Johnson led America into the Vietnam conflict and escalated it during the 1960's, and Republican Richard Nixon won the 1968 election portraying himself as the "peace candidate" and as such won a narrow victory over the Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey.

  Now the Republicans look like the war hawks, and the Democrats led by Howard Dean portray themselves as the doves. Interesting.

  I don't know if church affiliation has a lot to do with support for the war. Most Americans are nominally Christian, and will support a war if their leaders can convince them it is a "just war", like Democrat F.D. Roosevelt did in 1941 after initially pledging to keep America out of the European conflict which became World War II.
• 

  DevonMcBride

  Two Born Again Christians told me they were for the invasion because Iraq is a Muslim country where missionaries are not welcome. The overthrow of Saddam will open up the doors for evangelist to convert Iraqi's.

  Devon
• 

  Sirius Dogma

  Sorry Pat,

  I can't really give you another viewpoint, as I agree with you. I think this is the classic example of sheep perhaps. The sheep are willingly lead, mostly without question, thought or arguement by those percieved to be in a position of power be it clergy or government.

  I have been wondering what politcal stance and how much politcal influence the WTBS will exert now that voting among the witnesses has be de-regulated to a "matter of conscience." It is a bit scary when fundamentalist religions convinced of a bloody and destructive judgement day start voting for politicians who they believe will bring about that prophecy. I have heard more than a few witnesses rejoice anytime they hear of war because it means that the big day could be just around the corner. Who in their right mind prays for destruction?
• 

  patio34

  Gopher,

  Thanks for your reply. It helps to put things in a historical perspective. Things go back and forth. By the way, I was a JW for a looooong time, so knew the WT reasonings and the Biblical verses they use. But others may not, so thanks for the explanation for that too.

  Devon,

  Odd quirky reasoning from that corner of the missionary entrance. There'll always be the ones making backwards reasoning, won't there?

  Pat
• 

  SixofNine

  Churchgoers tend to be more concerned with feelings than facts. And as dangerous as that is, it's amplified by their seemingly religious devotion to their own feelings over other's feelings. Some churches make an honest attempt to mitigate that last, but most don't.

  If the foregoing does not describe you, please don't expend the effort to be insulted by it.
• 

  patio34

  Sirius Dogma,

  Thanks and it's nice to get to know you a little bit . You said:

  I think this is the classic example of sheep perhaps. The sheep are willingly lead, mostly without question, thought or arguement by those percieved to be in a position of power be it clergy or government.

  That seems to be so true and is probably the reason governments often seem to like people to have religion--it's often a way to influence and control them.

  Hi Six,

  That's often true, it seems to me. Especially outside of JW world, emotions/feelings are pretty important...well, in JW world too. But for non-religious types or not overly religious, maybe that's not the case. The most fearsome warriors may be the ones who think that God is on their side. Or worse, that God wants them to go to war.

  Pat
• 

  imallgrowedup

  Pat -

  I have learned my lesson on getting into these political threads, especially on this board where there are at least 30 liberals for every conservative. I just would like to offer up another theory on this, while at the same time respecting your opinion.

  I have no doubt that all the polls linking conservativism and most (not all) Christian religions are right on the money. Of course, in every scenario, there are always exceptions to the rule. But, IMHO, the reason "church goers" in general tend to lean toward conservative politics is not because we are war mongers or because we think that the lower class should remain lower class. It is because the basic tenants of conservatism and liberalism are based upon two competing viewpoints. Conservatives tend to believe that we all have free will and can make choices in our lives which affect the quality of our lives. This same viewpoint carries into our religious beliefs in that we (generally) believe that we all have the free will to choose God or not to choose God. On the other hand, Liberals tend to believe that people are born into certain scenarios that preclude some from ever having any choices in life. This spills over into the religious beliefs of many (not all) liberals who either do not believe in God, or do not believe in a personal God. Again, I want to stress here that there are always exceptions to these rules.

  Because there are exceptions to these very general definitions of liberalism and conservativism, there are also going to be varying degrees of whether one supports war or not. However, because these definitions of free will (Conservativism) versus pre-destination (Liberalism) greatly influence decisions on war, they are going to be inherent factors in determining which way one administration may view it, versus a different one. Most Conservatives/religious people tend to believe that this world is run by Satan, which means that he has great influence in all matters in this world, and that no matter how peaceful we all say we would like this world to be, it is an impossibility. This does NOT mean that conservatives love war. It means that conservatives accept it as part of this imperfect world. The "enemy", as seen by many conservatives, are those who are trying to take away and/or have the potential to take away personal liberties as afforded by the Constitution. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe that if there is a God, he sure is a rotten God to allow pain and suffering and war in this world, and as such, is a serious deterrant to the world peace that everyone - with the exception of Conservatives - want to see. Liberals also tend to think that the best way to achieve world peace is for all nations to lay down their arms and mutually agree to world peace. However, although most liberals see the Constitution as a document which gives them the right to further their cause, they also believe that there needs to be many changes made to it because certain aspects of the Constitution get in the way of world peace - namely, the right to publically practice the religion of one's choice, and the right to bear arms.

  IMHO, these are the basic differences between conservativism and liberalism, and that there are varying shades in between. I see people arguing about war, or social issues (inlcuding myself) and all both sides end up doing is beating their heads against the wall. War and social issues are what we argue about, but the real issues are how we see the world. The issues are just results of those views. I would say that perhaps debating the very foundations of our world views could bring about better understanding, but I believe that no matter how hard both sides sincerely try to subscribe to the other's viewpoint, that it would just put us on opposite sides of the fence again. There is always going to be this struggle - and I for one, wish we could all just learn to accept it and stop bashing one another because of it. It would be a great step towards world peace if we could just accomplish that.

  My .02,

  growedup
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  That sounds great... but I will challenge vehemently any worldview that posits that conservatives are the stalwarts of free will and liberals are the supporters of predestination.

  Conservatives are trying to conserve something...they tend to thing that things used to be better, and that we are going to hell in a handbasket due to our free choices to have more sex, sleep with people we're not married to, and allowing gays to marry. Conservatives tend toward a black-and-white, right-or-wrong, absolutist view of the world, and a belief in God (especially the angry Old Testament God) fits this very well.

  Liberals tend to believe that things are getting better, and that by more people getting involved, and by people challenging the status quo, things can continue to improve. Liberals tend to believe more in moral relativism than moral absolutism, so the only God that tends to fit that is the mellow Protestant God referred to in the New Testament, not the pissed-off genocidal nutjob from the Old Testament.

  There are members of both groups who believe in what they believe in due to prejudice and knee-jerk reaction... and some in each camp who are doing their best to reason their way through the world.

  Actually, if you wanted to look at the original question from another viewpoint, let's look at who is in which party:

  http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/images/image040.gif
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  In a 2001 study at this link:

  http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/images/image040.gif

  You can see what denominations or religious affiliations identify themsleves with which parties. (I would post the GIF, but I've never gotten that feature of the board to work for me...)

  More Baptists are Democratic than Republican. More Catholics are Democratic than Republican. Oddly, the mainstream US Protestant denoms (Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.) are more Republican than Democrat. Episcopalians are tied (although probably not for much longer).Not sure how 10% of JW's claimed Democrat :)... must've been anonymous.

  True, the No Religion, Jewish, and Buddhist categories really trend towards Democratic. But the others are so close that the original premise about non-churchgoers and churchgoers, looks kinda weak when viewed nationally. (Who you choose to hang out with would skew your experiential data - as it would mine:)