Wake up, people! These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing we’ve been hearing so much about. Many of these so-called “Christian” politicians are worshiping “nature gods” in occulting settings or worse.

If you name the name of Christ and care about current political events, take the rose-colored glasses off long enough to learn something. Visit sites like infowars.com and google up terms like “bohemian grove” to see what these people are really up to ….

You are truly living in a time where so many things are done in the name of Christ that are just not right. Don’t be a kool-aid drinker; think for yourself and make stand where you are to tell globalists to “stuff it.”

No harm done. The secular media prefers to view BJU as wacko right-wing and its students as mindless zombies. I doubt that there will be much profit for secularists in emphasizing perceived independence of thought among fundamentalists—even if the reality is more like Bunyan’s waterman, looking one way while rowing another.

This will be my last post on this issue. This will also be a very long post. Thanks in advance for your patience.

Your headline of your blog post stated, “BJU joins Murtha and Sheehan?” In order for this headline to be even close to acceptable, you should have stated right from the start how this is not true! You should have pointed out how the Collegian’s article may have (at first glance) sounded like this, but upon further examination it was clear that the Collegian was not in agreement with these 2 liberals. A simple question mark in your headline does not magically remove the link you are making between the Collegian article and these people. I am not the only one here on your blog that has pointed this out. Several others had made this charge and you have simply passed it off by saying, “I put a question mark”. Here are a couple samplings of what others are saying on your blog:

“Actually, if you read the article, the BJU Collegian editors are not joining Sheehan. Rather, they feel that Sheehan is dishonoring the memory of her son . . . “

“I wouldn’t go as far as to say that BJ is joining the Sheehan/Murtha crowd . . .”

“it also isn’t an endorsement of Murtha’s or Sheehan’s view that we should remove the troops immediately. I don’t think any reasonable person would interpret this as a slam against the Bush administration or its policy on the Iraq war.”

Sheehan is denounced in the Collegian article. Murtha is never mentioned. You try to make the link by giving your select isolated quotes by Murtha. This does not tell the whole story of Murtha’s views or the Collegian’s. Murtha’s view is “immediate withdrawal”.

Washington Post, November 18, 2005

“The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush’s latest attack on his critics.” (emphasis mine)

Murtha’s views are further explained by this report in the Los Angeles Times, November 17th.

“Murtha said the war had become “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,” the intelligence on which the decision to invade Iraq was “a U.S. failure,” and that the war was exacting far-reaching and damaging costs on the U.S. military and the nation’s readiness to defend itself.” (emphasis mine)

Murtha’s and Sheehan’s view is clearly dismissed by the Collegian when they state, “The third possibility would be immediate and complete withdrawal . . . Now that we’re in Iraq, we have to responsibly finish the job.”

Austin, you have asked me to address the statement, “The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.” I will do that, but I will ask you to again read this statement in context. Right above his statement, the Collegian gives THE ISSUE: and OUR VIEW: Their view is stated this way, “The U.S. government must gradually remove troops from Iraq, being responsible about the war but giving control back to Iraq.” Everything else in this article must be interpreted by this. If anything is confusing, we must go back to their thesis statement about the issue.

So, how do I interpret it when they say we should “start to gradually remove troops”? What do I make of the word “start”. Well, I know it can’t mean “immediate” because they have clearly rejected that in this article. It can’t mean just “pull ‘em all out” because the have used phrases like “being responsible” and “responsibly finish the job”. Maybe the third to the last paragraph gives us an insight when the article states, “we have to start focusing on pulling out.” The word “start” in this context seems to mean “as soon as possible”. “Start” does not, as they clearly state, mean “immediate”!

Consider these statements in the last 2 paragraphs:

“And the pentagon has already developed a plan for withdrawing more than 60,000 of the 160,000 troops not stationed in Iraq.” (this is very similar to what Rumsfield indicated yesterday on capitol hill)

“The United States needs to ignore anti-war protesters and focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.”

Austin, you said that “Sheehan and Murtha have taken very public positions in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq. In that limited sense, the editors of joined them.” This is like saying that since I’m in favor of helping the poor that I have joined Ted Kennedy and the democrats, in a very limited sense. You say they have in a “limited sense” joined these others. It is extremely limited, yet you use this as your main headline regarding the article. I know all about titles. They need to be “teasers”. You definitely did that with your title. I just wish you had been more careful with it.

When dealing with Scripture, we ask people all the time to search out the context and to interpret the whole passage instead of isolated verses. This is not just good practice for reading and interpreting Scripture. It is good practice for the reading and interpreting of anything written. Unfortunately today, the media thrives on pulling out isolated comments and statements. This is what I believe you have done. Again, I do believe the Collegian’s article could have been written better, but to immediately jump on it and give any indication of this agreeing with Murtha and Sheehan is, in my estimation, irresponsible journalism.

Thanks for the dialogue. I have nothing at all against you personally. I trust I have communicated that in my posts.

Sincerely,

Matt Herbster

I see the editorial as more of a “middle ground” between those who are calling for immediate withdrawal and those who are not ready to even begin withdrawing. I should just ask the writer if he intended to second the views of Murtha and Sheehan. The students have already learned a lesson about being aware of how many eyes are viewing what they write and how their words can be misinterpreted if they are not careful to be very clear.

The Iraqis won’t feel independent and capable of launching out on their own until we, the Americans, the foreigners, have left. They needed us, but only for a while. So continuing the stay indefinitely risks losing the welcome.
[Collegian]

I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. . . . I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
[Murtha]

*****

We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.
[Collegian]

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
[Murtha]

*****

The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq.
[Collegian]

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies; that if they wait long enough America will cut and run and abandon its friends. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists’ tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.
[President Bush]

Bet, I think you’re right that “we can all make too much of one little editorial.” However, I’m told that I’ve mischaracterized, misrepresented, and distorted the editorial, and that I’m irresponsible and unreasonable, all because I think the editorial agrees more with Murtha et al. than Bush. It’s frustrating to me, because it seems so obvious.

I’m not fond of these online arguments so I’m not going to get into that. I do think we can all make too much of one little editorial.

I believe I have provided an alternate interpretation at least 2 times which I don’t believe you have addressed at all. I have given you the “3 options” context over and over and you have not yet addressed this.
[Matt]

No, providing an interpretation is different from saying that we might be able to make one. Here’s what you said before:

Please indicate to me which option would be chosen by the President if having to choose one of the three options proposed in the Collegian article? He would choose the gradual withdrawal as indicated by Rumsfield’s comments made today to members of Congress. Status quo is not the president’s policy as the comments by Rumsfield indicates. What is it about this statement that differs from anything the president is for? The president does not want us there indefinitely, and he does not think we should withdraw immediately.
[Matt]

1. This has to do with the “3 options” section, not the quotation in question.
2. Obviously had Rumsfeld changed policy today that wouldn’t be the status quo at the time the editors wrote the article.
3. Anyways, from what’s been reported of Rumsfeld’s comments, he only raised the possibility of a withdrawal–he didn’t commit to start one, which is what the Collegian article called for. The difference is important.
4. I think you misunderstand what I mean by the Administration’s policy status quo. I’m not saying the Administration wants troops to remain in Iraq forever (in that sense maintaining the status quo); I’m saying that the current U.S. policy doesn’t include a commitment to start withdrawing troops, although it of course leaves open that as a future possibility. It’s status quo in the sense of its being current policy.

Besides, I think the “3 options” argument is meant to support the quoted sentences, not interpret them. For support, it’s pretty weak, as G.K. pointed out.

If it were meant to provide interpretation, then we would run into the same old problem as before: how is it any different from the status quo? If it is different, then it’s disagreeing with Bush. If it’s not different, then there’s no point in saying anything but “attaboy!”

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
[Matt]

Matt, you’ve said that I’m irresponsible and that I’ve mischaracterized, misrepresented, and distorted the quotation, and you’ve reiterated that you’re serious about choosing those terms.

Yet your argument is against taking the quotation at face value. When I show that it disagrees with Bush policy and agrees in a limited way with Murtha and Sheehan, your response is to cite a vague context (one that you said yourself was “confusing”) that may or may not be provided by a false trichotomy.

That’s pretty thin support for such accusations.

The editorial says,

The United States should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough.
[Collegian]

Now, please tell me how to interpret this so that it doesn’t mean we should start removing troops from Iraq and that it doesn’t mean we’ve been there long enough and spent enough. If you can’t, then you can’t claim that I’ve distorted, misinterpreted, etc. anything.

I do disagree that it is only the repsponsibility of the writer to make sure things are clear. It is also the responsiblity of the reader. It is also the responsibility of the reporter to give the FULL story, not just a small segment. That is the fault I see in your “report”.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. However, we can agree that our troops need to stay as long as possible to get the job done!

BTW, you didn’t comment at all on Rumsefield’s comments. Seems to me he is suggesting the withdrawal of troops as well.

Is this article confusing? Yes is is! The editor should have done a much better job in clarifying.
[Matt]

I think you’ve put your finger on the main problem here. As someone else pointed out in a previous comment, the essay is a “muddle.” But as another said, they’re college kids, so we should be happy they’re thinking on their own–believe me, I am.

Now, you insist that I come up with an consistent interpretation of the entire article before I quote any part of it. Sorry, that’s not my job–that’s the job of the writers. If they didn’t mean to suggest that we “should start to gradually remove its troops from Iraq. We’ve been there long enough and done enough and spent enough,” then they shouldn’t have said it.

Look at it this way. Suppose I wrote an editorial in which the first sentence was, “We should start to tear down the WILDS,” but then later on I said, “The WILDS has helped numerous young people over the years, and we need to support it as long as it’s still beneficial.”

No doubt your doppelganger would come along and say, “Matt, Austin doesn’t really mean to say we should tear down your ministry. You have to put that first sentence in the context of the rest of the article, where he says it’s been helpful. When he says we should tear it down, he really is just acknowledging that someday everything will fall apart. Surely you would agree that eventually all physical things will pass away? Don’t misinterpret and mischaracterize that first sentence by taking at face value.”

These others (news sources) find it newsworthy because they are always looking for anything against Bob Jones. They have distorted and mischaracterized the article just as you have. That is what troubles me about your position on this.
[Matt]

Matt, for the charge of distorting and mischaracterizing to stick, you really need to provide an alternate interpretation of the quotation that started all this. I’ve explained above how it clearly goes against Bush’s policy and agrees with Murtha and Sheehan in at least one way. Explain how it doesn’t.

You are again ignoring the whole context of the article. The context was in choosing 1 of three options. Please indicate to me which option would be chosen by the President if having to choose one of the three options proposed in the Collegian article? He would choose the gradual withdrawal as indicated by Rumsfield’s comments made today to members of Congress. Status quo is not the president’s policy as the comments by Rumsfield indicates. What is it about this statement that differs from anything the president is for? The president does not want us there indefinitely, and he does not think we should withdraw immediately. (neither does the collegian)

We ALL want to see our troops come home, but ONLY when it is feasible. This seems to be what is being indicated in the Collegian article.

These others (news sources) find it newsworthy because they are always looking for anything against Bob Jones. They have distorted and mischaracterized the article just as you have. That is what troubles me about your position on this.

Is this article confusing? Yes is is! The editor should have done a much better job in clarifying. However, the context of three options, should help you in figuring out what is NOT being said – (i.e. we must start immediate withdrawal). Please consider again the closing statement in the article. “The United States needs to ignore anti-war protesters and focus on continuing, but ultimately finishing, the job.” This to me makes very clear what the Collegian writer was intending.

Just please read an article as a whole. It is SO frustrating to hear the mainstream media take bits and pieces of comments and articles and make entire news stories out of it. That is what seems to me to be the problem with your take.

Thanks for the discussion, Austin. And, just in case you were seriously asking – I don’t think they they make stuff up out of “whole cloth”.