'..patriotism is the last refuge, to rinse a scoundrel clean, steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king...'
-Bob Dylan

(Spleece: Nice photo, by the way, I love it, thanks for posting it.)

Whole-heartedely agree. I think religion is often times a scape goat. People like the pastor don't help. One should also realize that often religion is used to rally the, for the lack of a better word, troops for what is in the end the theft of another's land. Remember our own history, with regard to Native American's. Admitting that we are stealing another's land simply for our own selfish reasons may be more honest, but it doesn't get the juices flowing like a good ol' "Gods on our side" or "It's Gods Will" or "We are a Christian nation fighting to give others their God given rights." Patriotism is used the same way, so one need not be religious to be caught up in a religious like fervor.

...but ANY RELIGIOUS right takes the cake...

(and trust me, they'll TAKE it)

Yet not everyone will...

-s

Lotsa people of different types and backgrounds have had to put aside their differences of color, creed, and economic class to cooperate and create the mess of the last 500 years. Let's give credit where it's due now.

Who the heck cares about the hateful rantings of a right wing Christian anyway? Ya'll act like this is something new. Haven't you looked outside your windows at the state of the world latley? Who do you think has produced all this mess over the last 500 years?!?

is everything now going 'bold type?'

It is further unfortunate that the pastor is attacking the person who wrote the article and had documented his statements, -rather than defending his stance.
I've written about the stance, to some length in another thread. (..dispensationalism boogie,) on this site.

It is a regrettable thing, done in a lot of circles, (including church ones,) where instead of answering the comment and question about the stance, -the writer is slandered and attacked.

Not knowing the editors personal beliefs, (but finding his actions commendable, and open to hearing other's opinnions,)

I can clearly state, as a person of faith, (Born Again Christian, etc. etc.) -'Saved since 1973, (also) ascribing to 'Covenant Theology,' (versus 'Crisis Conversion (the basis of the 'Saved Born Again' movement,) -Covenant meaning that a person can be raised in the faith and not have a sole 'life changing pagan to Christian moment.' (inquire on Email if you wish to know further of this.)

I was raised within the mindset and denoms that ascribe to this stance and these interpretations of the Bible.
-Plymouth Brethren
-Baptist
-Christian and Missionary Alliance
-Calvary Chapel
-Church of Christ
-Presbyterian
-Missonary with the Mennonites
-Messianic (both Zionist and Non)
-(various other 'low church, (non-liturgical,) gatherings, -both on Charasmatic/Penticostal and 'cessationist,' sides. --all considered a type of Fundi base.)

Being a person of faith, being a Bible Reader, (not using the thing to smack people with, (-anymore,-though I used to a long time ago,)

I can tell you that this position that he is taken is atypical of such authors as Hal Lindsay, (70's), (David?) Hunt, (70's-80's) LeHaye (the whole recent Left Behind Series,)
as well as a slew of other Media type writers found on more Charasmatic circles.
There are a number of Messianic groups (Jews for Jesus, Friends of Israel, etc.) that also cross polinate and ascribe to a perspective that requires backing Israel at all costs, political etc.
(be she right or wrong, -because she is 'God's Chosen,' people.)
-Not to take anything away from Israel with the above phrase, it's just that the Islamics feel the same way, --as well as a fair amount of 'Christians.'
(Keep in mind, up until the early fifties, the Church thought that Israel was extinct and a possible Prophecy (yet to be filled,) -and were not even sure about BenGurians declaration of Israel in 1948.
-Samuel Clemmens (Mark Twain,) is noted to have said: '...I've seen the promised land, and you can have it.' (referring to the state of Israel at that time... Since then she has done spectacular things and has gone from being a barren wasteland to a major crops producing tree growing thriving economy... (No mean feat for less than 60 odd years of existance...)

There are plenty of people of faith (who are Christians, ---even Right Winged ones,) that are not wild about the current politicising of our beliefs, -severely dislike the rewriting of US History to make our founding fathers all 'ascribing to Christianity,' (when in face, many were simply Deists, (believed in a God, but did not identify that God as being the one found in Christianity,)
---AND CLEARLY FRAMED THE FOUNDING LAWS OF THE COUNTIES STATES AND NATION SO THAT PEOPLE HAD FREEDOM TO PURSUE (ANY) RELIGIOUS BELIEF -not ONLY Christianity... (Part of the reason why we pulled out of England was because (Anglicanism,) was the 'National Religion,' --and they felt that such a thing was not only oppressive but a violation of a persons church - state systems.

There are even (very,) conservative groups in the area (a number of Mennonites,) who are Christians and are extremely anti-war, and have been conciencious objectors from their start as a denom, (a number of which protest against the war all the time, are involved with such groups as Peace Fresno, the Reedley Peace Center, and Fresno Pacific Univ. (a Mennonite School.)
--all of these groups are anti-war and quite vocal about it. (A bunch of them were also in farenheit 9/11.)
It's odd that these groups aren't mentioned by a (basically Baptist) church about a very large Christian Faith group in the area. (Mennonites are AnaBaptist.)

This is a severely Right Wing and Fundi (based) area.
I have seen more severe pockets of fundamentalism, but they are usually considered cultish and extremely intolerant of any other belief, often other races, and usually any other govt. following.

What is happening, is:
-the people who are not Right Wing Fundi's aren't involved in the discussion, (they sometimes don't travel in alt. circles -or if they do they aren't speaking up much,)
-and finally, they recognize that entering into a conversation with a Right Wing Fundi about anything will not result in someone saying '...whoah, I havn't thought of it that way, you have a point there.' (-usually it ends with someone taking the perspective of '...the brother/sister is misguided, possibly not even a Christian, -for if they were, they'd see things our way.')

--Note: to a Right Wing Fundi, --the mere fact that you will consider someone elses views in their full context, --and find anything good in them, brands you as a 'liberal.' --it's how they are raised to react.
-Hence the shooting down of the editor of the Undercurrent.
Tangling with these folks is like wrestling with a huge sheet of flypaper.
(Strangely enough, it is an even more exact portrayal of 'God's People,' being so hostile to each other, and shooting first and asking questions later, --only we don't even have land to go after, and are considered as 'grafted in,' to the vine of history (whereas our Mid-East relatives grew up in it...)

I've 'known the Lord,' since 1973, have been a missionary, and run up the ladder of several of the denoms I've been involved in, (various forms of ministry,) I tend to go into leadership within these groups,)

I don't often talk that deeply about my faith (particularlly on this site,) as it freaks people out and they think I'm preaching, (yes, I've preached and led Bible Studies, broadcast on the radio, etc. etc... -but NOT on the site.)
If they chose to go after my beliefs and understandings of the scriptures (as well as the two religs. that they are tangling with,) I could could probably give them a run for their money and then some, and wouldn't even have to use the Bible to do it, any decent newspaper or history book will show the fault of their thinking...

-None of it will amount to a hill of beans when talking to these folks (the pastor-etc.) Not unlike some poor slob chained to a car full of explosives, they feel that they are on a mission from God with their stances, and need no further authorization.
Any conversation with them questioning their stance will be taken as a sign of them being right, the questioner being more 'of the Devil,' and bolsters this sense of righteous martyrdom.
(It's not a new stance among subgroups, I know radical 'greens,' and 'alts.' who act the same way.)

Not to question their stance with the Almighty, (that is not my business,) I would suggest that, as other readers have pointed out, -they are going after a specific law, or group of passages,
--that are further answered, explained, and delivered into more graceful concepts, themes, and commands written throughout the Bible.

There are passages in the scriptures as well, that are times where an apostle of church leader is writing an entire city or group of believers, and says such things as, '...you are amazing, you have the truth, -but instead you go off into such bizarre practices that even those who do NOT have the truth look at you and are repulsed, dismayed, and point out your fault publically...' (paraphrase,)

This would be one of those times, I'm afraid. (...isn't the first, won't be the last.)

(I'm not aware of any little bracelets being sold that say Who Would Jesus Bomb?
-Though there were T-Shirts that I've seen that say 'Kill 'em All and Let God Sort 'em Out.'
--Most folks I know, especially the Vets, didn't like them, and would rather wear something about Jane Fonda before getting caught dead with something so repulsive

I listed to the Pastor's rebuttal on the Ray Appleton show, and there are several bizarre inconsistencies to note.

They claim that as a journalist, Mr. Fierro should have checked his facts and stayed objective:
1. Mr. Fierro's piece appeared on an email listserve and on the Undercurrent's web site. You could interpret Mr. Fierro's piece as an opinion piece - every newspaper has opinion pieces. Indeed, much of what the Pastor and Ray Appleton do on their media outlet is also opinion.
2. That said, I'm not sure Mr. Fierro's piece is not journalism. The Pastor admitted to everything Mr. Fierro reported in quotes, so I'm not sure what fact checking they felt he should do. I thought Mr. Fierro's piece was clear in what the Pastor said and the analysis Mr. Fierro brought to it.
3. Ray Appleton said, something along the lines of (sorry, didn't *check my facts* on this one, it's just a paraphrase), I don't know where this paper is for sale... But (a) the article did not appear in print and (b) the Undercurrent is a free publication. Perhaps Mr. Appleton should have checked his facts.

Now, consider their conclusion that Mr. Fierro is antireligion. Their only evidence is Mr. Fierro's saying that a man of God shouldn't be calling for more war. Appleton and the Pastor conclude that Mr. Fierro thinks that religious people should not state their opinion:
(1) They don't say anything about Mr. Fierro personally, so they can know nothing about his stance on religion.
(2) I think it's obvious that the point Mr. Fierro is making is that there's a paradox for a religious leader to advocate violence. In my readings of the Bible, I seem to recall things like peace and "thou shall not kill." Set aside self defense here; we need to admit to ourselves that innocent people and children are dying in these conflicts (and think about the innocent survivors of Hiroshima, who must live with the effects of radiation). No war has ended wars, otherwise there wouldn't be wars now, right?

Appleton and the Pastor take every opportunity they can to take jabs at Mr. Fierro and the Undercurrent, but they seem to know nothing about the Undercurrent other than it's circulation, which they marginalize and point out is only 3,000 at present. If the Undercurrent is so minor in their eyes, why do they waste half an hour on some commentary that appeared on the Undercurrent web site? Maybe they think the editors of independent papers shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions? After they accuse Mr. Fierro of thinking religious people shouldn't voice their opinions?!

And then they go on and on about freedom of speech and how that doesn't give you the right to be wrong. But they don't prove that Mr. Fierro is wrong...

The bottom line is that it is baffling and disappointing that public figures (Appleton and the Pastor) would be so petty, inconsistent, antagonistic, hypocritical, and arrogant. I should be careful what I say, though, maybe they'll waste half on hour talking about this post, too.

Mr. Fierro is courageous for bringing these issues to light, and in his brevity, he (unlike Appleton and the Pastor) allows us to make up our own minds.

This mans true colors have come out as a man of the devil. His is not following Jesus's teachings of Love one another and turn the other cheek.

If these so called Churches are going to speak political rhetoric then they need to be taxed.

I love the Undercurrents bringing this out in to the light.

This Man wants this to happen again...