For instance, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address the president labeled Iran, Iraq and
North Korea the "axis of evil,' Stassen said.
"Calling the three nations the 'axis of evil' and refusing to acknowledge any errors that
he has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous 'axis
of evil,' ' Stassen said. "... It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian
thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.'

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, said he won't sign the statement because he
doesn't want to appear partisan. Mouw said he has critiques of both presidential candidates.
Mouw, who opposed the war in Iraq, said he doesn't know Bush's intentions, but said his
language resonates with evangelical Christians, some of whom consider him to be speaking for
God.
There's a danger in the Christian community of people being uncritical in their
endorsement of American interests, he said.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~22097~2455971,00.html
Proffesors oppose Bush `theology' By Marshall Allen , Staff Writer

PASADENA -- A group of Fuller Theological Seminary professors, saying they are responding to
a "grave moral crisis' in America, are signing a statement opposing President Bush's alleged
convergence of God, church and nation and what they call his "theology of war.'

Glen Stassen, Fuller's Louis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics, said Bush's religious
rhetoric confuses the cause of Christianity with that of a nation at war.

For instance, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address the president labeled Iran, Iraq and
North Korea the "axis of evil,' Stassen said.

"Calling the three nations the 'axis of evil' and refusing to acknowledge any errors that he
has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous 'axis of
evil,' ' Stassen said. "... It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian
thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.'

The statement of beliefs, called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence,' criticizes
Bush's use of scripture in a speech on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks. Bush described the hope offered by America by saying, "... the light shines in the
darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it.'

These words, used in the Bible, apply only to Jesus Christ and no political leader has the
right to "twist them into the service of war,' the confession says.

The statement began circulating among the faculty Tuesday, Stassen said. Its assertions
include the claim that Jesus Christ knows no national boundaries, that Christians should
have a strong presumption against war and that Christians should exercise humility, which
would temper political disagreements.

About 20 professors have signed it, though it has not made the full rounds at Fuller,
Stassen said. Stassen expects that almost all of the seminary's 80 full-time professors will
sign it. Fuller is the largest evangelical seminary in the country.

The current confession is not the first time Fuller professors have publicly objected to
Bush. About 40 faculty members signed a September 2002 letter opposing Bush's statements
about a unilateral pre-emptive war in Iraq. Bush is now campaigning on pre-emptive war and
using Christian language in the process, Stassen said.

The Fuller educators are part of a national movement of theologians and ethicists who are
signing the document. They are being organized by Stassen, George Hunsinger of Princeton
Theological Seminary, Richard B. Hays of Duke Divinity School, Richard Pierard of Gordon
College and Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine.

The same five leaders endorsed a recent ad campaign in the national media that proclai "God
is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat.'

Dan Palm, political science chair at Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian
school, said the statement is not something he would sign. Palm said his primary critique of
the statement is that it's a caricature of the Religious Right that seems designed to get
politically liberal Christians out to vote.

Palm especially objected to a paragraph that suggested pastors are not preaching about
teachings of Jesus such as "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.'

"I think that's really a low, cheap shot,' Palm said. "I think there's room for honest
disagreement among Christians for when the right time is for using military force.'

Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, a conservative political
organization based in Monrovia, said the movement opposing Bush's religious rhetoric sounds
like it has a left-wing agenda.

"It sounds like these Fuller professors are trying to use religion to their own political
end,' he said.

Spence said that Bush's use of religious imagery is no different than any other president's.

Ronald Reagan's "City on a Hill' speech was clearly a biblically based vision for the
future, he said.

Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton also frequently used religious imagery,
he said.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, said he won't sign the statement because he
doesn't want to appear partisan. Mouw said he has critiques of both presidential candidates.

Mouw doesn't oppose Bush's claims that God favors freedom, but said "it's always dangerous
for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world.'

Mouw, who opposed the war in Iraq, said he doesn't know Bush's intentions, but said his
language resonates with evangelical Christians, some of whom consider him to be speaking for
God.

There's a danger in the Christian community of people being uncritical in their endorsement
of American interests, he said.

According to a recent study on religion and politics from the University of Akron, 68
percent of Americans want a president to have strong religious beliefs and 63 percent are
comfortable when candidates discuss their faith.

Marshall Allen can be reached at (626) 578-6300, Ext. 4461, or by e-mail at
marshall.allen@sgvn.com .
For the the text of the theology letter click here
------------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means: "soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense
and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if
they don't want to." And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary,
xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back
to the '50s," we cowered in the corner and said, "Please, don't hurt me."
~ from an episode of 'The West Wing '
-------------------------------------------------------------------
...[T]he denigration of journalism continues unabated. By journalism I mean both the
product of the commercial news media as well as the journalism of NPR and PBS. After
two decades of conservative criticism and corporate inroads, the public system is
now full within the same ideological confines that come naturally to a profit
driven, advertising supported system. . .There were also several case studies in
1999 and 2000 on the shortcomings of corporate controlled journalism for a
democratic society.
Some of the problems today come from the inherent limitations of journalism as
conducted by self interested, profit motivated companies. Others are due to faults
in the professional practice of journalism, faults which date to the beginning of the
twentieth century. In particular, the professional reliance upon official sources
and the need for a news peg, or event, to justify coverage of a story plays directly
into the hands of those who benefit from the status quo. But many problems result from the
enhanced corporate pressure to make journalism a source of huge profits; this leads to
easy-to-cover trivial stories and an emphasis on the type of news that will have appeal to
the upper and upper-middle classes. The combination of all three of these factors leads to
the woeful state of U.S. journalism in the early twenty-first century.
Robert W. McChesney "Rich Media Poor Democracy" pg. xv
----------------------------------------------
Confidence in our major institutions and their leaders has fallen so low as to put
their legitimacy at risk - and for good reason. On the threshold of the golden age,
these institutions are working for only a fortunate few. For the many, they are
failing disastrously to fulfill the promise that once seemed within our reach.
David C Korten "When Corporations Rule the World" p. 23
--------------------------------------------
Much of what people know about the world beyond their own experience comes from the mass
media. In a variety of direct and indirect ways, media content influences what people
believe, what they think about, and how they act.

The Media's potential to influence large numbers of people makes conflict over media
content inevitable. In some cases the conflict deals with broad issues, such as violence on
television or possible bias in news about public affairs, while in other cases the conflict
may be local and individualized, as when a newspaper publishes information that harms the
reputation of an ordinary citizen.

The phrase "media accountability" is often used but seldom defines. Some writers think of
media accountability in terms of news credibility. Others see it in terms of legal
obligations and prohibitions. Still others discuss media accountability without defining it
at all. Media accountability is the process by which media organizations may be expected
or obliged to render an account of their activities to their constituents.

"Holding the Media Accountable, Citizens, Ethics, and the Law" David Pritchard, p.2