If G. Bush is so holy ???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why does George Bush not pay any attention to the Pope's message to say out of war??

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 05, 2003

Answers

Hi, Gilda. A few points in answer to your thread title and question ...

1. I don't believe that anyone has said that President Bush is "holy." I doubt that he considers himself holy.
2. I don't believe that anyone has said that President Bush did not "pay attention to the Pope's message." I would bet a lot that he did "pay attention" to it, but came to a decision to disagree with it.
3. There is nothing so surprising in that disagreement. First, the president is not Catholic, so he does not feel a duty to believe what the pope teaches nor to obey rules that the pope imposes. Second, the pope's statement was a prudential one, a statement of opinion based on his judgment of the facts known to him -- not a doctrine and not a disciplinary rule. The pope's judgment in this matter does not even bind Catholics in some way, much less non-Catholics.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 05, 2003.


Today the Pope has asked all Catholics to fast and pray for peace.

I for one am fasting and have been praying for weeks that God may enlighten the hearts of everyone involved on the world stage.

If Saddam and Kim Jong Il ceased their efforts to thwart the international community and dismantled their offensive weapons industries their nations would be welcomed into the UN family of peaceful nations with open arms - and their regimes would not be threatened.

Even Communist Vietnam has a treaty with the US - and amicable relations.... so could they. Let us pray for conversion of those tyrant's hearts!

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 05, 2003.


Amen, Joe.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 05, 2003.

Joe and John unfortunatley the enemy may be from within ;-)...

Man arrested for 'peace' T-shirt NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

"I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment.

Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17.

He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.


Jmj

You can be sure, Kiwi, that the enemy is without, not within. Here are a few points to consider:

1. What is described above would not have happened in 99% of all restaurants in the U.S.. (You are not an American, so an article like this could fool you into believing that such an event may be common here.)

2. What is described above comes through a Reuters News Service filter and may not contain all the relevant facts that could have helped you to see the event in a different light. What makes this story suspect? In the days just after September 11, 2001, the politically correct (liberal European) Reuters decided not to use the word "terrorists" in their stories. The event described above took place in New York, one of the most liberal states in the U.S.. It seems likely that there were extenuating circumstances that were not reported.

3. Even if the story is totally accurate, what is described is not something incredibly offensive. Although I myself don't think that people should be prohibited from wearing "peace" shirts, the owner of private property, who has invited the public to be present on that property, has the right to tell a person to either leave or follow a dress code. A restaurant owner can require that shoes be worn, that ties be worn, that shirts be worn, or that shirts of a certain kind be worn. That's just part of civilized culture.

4. The man in the story would not have been arrested if he had left when told he could not stay, in his current condition. He refused to follow a legal order, so he was punished. So maybe you were right, after all, in saying that "the enemy may be within." One of America's "enemies within" is definitely people who defiantly break the law, like the man arrested here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.



John, I am in complete agreement with you. Too often people assume that private businesses carrying on business with the public are obliged to conduct business the way the customer feels they should. Private businesses are permitted to establish rules for customers while in their establishments provided those rules fall within the laws of the land.

I too doubt the authenticity &/or the disclosure of all facts of this story, but in any event the customer has recourse in voicing his protest by not frequenting that establishment in the future.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 06, 2003.


A dress code for a mall??? That will be the day! That argument would stand up if (1) such a dress code were posted on every entrance to the mall, and (2) if it was broad in scope (no T-shirts allowed). Of course that would eliminate a majority of the mall's business. As it stands, the ACLU is in a superb position to make Mr. Downs a rich man. I am no fan of the ACLU, but when there is a genuine blatant violation of constitutional rights like this, I'm glad they take the case. Remember - if a public place can arrest people for wearing Peace statements, they can also arrest people for public expressions of religious belief, or any other kind of public statements they choose to persecute.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2003.

Apparently the mall, as the result of an infinitely wise business decision, is dropping the charges. Now, Mr. Downs is free to pursue them in a civil matter for all the pain & mental anguish he was caused. He's a lawyer, after all, and Heaven knows he needs the money.

You know, I'm getting a little tired of seing naked and almost-naked coeds prancing all over the newspapers, protesting something they have no idea about. I'm perfectly willing to wager that a good many college kids in the US cannot identify Iraq on a world map. I'm convinced of it. Yup. Absolutely confident.

If tie-dyes and petulli oil make a(nother) comeback, I'm really going to puke.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 06, 2003.


No need to worry Jake.
The profile of the 12 milion world-wide protestors of a couple of weeks ago was quite broad and diverse.
Closer to home, you might be surprised looking at the folks in the marches and demonstrations. Very few tie-dys and I haven't noticed a wiff of Petuli.
Here in my little city the most dedicated, long-term , persistant resistance group has been made up of grey haired Catholics. They've been at the library every Wedsnesday at noon for over a year, specifically opposing the invasion of Iraq.
So far the demonstrations have been opposing a "theoretical" war.
There is much more action planned for when the killing begins.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 06, 2003.

Jmj
Thanks, Ed L, for your support.

Paul, I believe that you reached a wrong conclusion because you started with a false premise. You wrote:
"I am no fan of the ACLU, but when there is a genuine blatant violation of constitutional rights like this, I'm glad they take the case. Remember -- if a public place can arrest people for wearing Peace statements, they can also arrest people for public expressions of religious belief, or any other kind of public statements they choose to persecute.

Your "wrong conclusion" is that "there is a genunine blatant violation of constitutional rights." There was no violation whatsoever.
The "false premise" that led to your wrong conclusion is that this event occurred in "a public place." It occurred at a food court (privately rented area) in a privately owned mall. Since those are the facts, the tenants (restaurant) or mall owners have the legal right to impose dress codes or even to evict a visitor, who is present on the premises through the invitation of the mall owners. No visitor to a privately owned mall has a "right" even to be there, much less to wear whatever he/she pleases.
You mentioned potential religious persecution. I would have considered it gross bigotry -- but legally protected, nonetheless -- for the restauranteur or mall owner to have evicted (or arrested for trespass) the man, if he had insisted on wearing a prohibited religious symbol or message on the premises.

However, I would agree with your position, Paul, if this whole thing had taken place on publicly owned land, such as a city park -- though even there, one does not have the liberty to partake in "public indecency" in dress.

God bless you.
John
PS (not addressed to you, Paul): Discontented liberals who were born in America can easily emigrate to France, where the percentage of non-Muslims is shrinking.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.



Hi John

I have read your 4 points, IMHO the only one worth considering is your first point relating to the accuracy of the reporting.I agree we need to be cautious with such reports but it seems to be accurate.

Your other 3 points are so seriously flawed as to be devoid of any logic. From someone of your intelligence I can only say you are being dishonest in intent or you misread the article. If you feel your arguments contain any merit whatsoever Im quite willing to illustrate why they do not do so. (although I think to any resonable thinking person this would be glaringly obvious.)

Thanks all the same and Im glad to hear this is not common practice, at least yet in America.

Good to see you back and Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.


OK John,

I stand corrected. I hereby amend my previous post, as follows:

"That argument would stand up if (1) such a dress code were posted on every entrance to the food court, and (2) if it was broad in scope (no T-shirts allowed)".

Otherwise it is not a "dress code" but a clear discrimination against the free speech of another person.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 06, 2003.


FYI many of those twelve million protesters were anit-semetic. The holocaust may be over but the anti-Israli semitism is far from over. Go to the not in our name website. They provide direct links to sites that tolorate and link to anti semetic websites. My mind was made up about 15 years ago when my best friend told me how he got to watch his mother raped and killed by sadam's regime. He was only 6 years old. Do you believe that this man should have any power? If America is the only one willing to disarm and remove the guy that so be it. He has murdered a million and a half people...his own citizens. Many Catholics, Christians and Jews. If we don't remove saddam, we only have his eldest son to look foward to. A man who rapes women for sport, holds random executions by animals in public arenas. A man named NERO comes to mind whenever i hear about him.

The pope is against people dying. But I don't the he condones saddam. I say LIBERATE IRAQ! I have a lot of family in the military and they agree. To me it is truelly sad the so many people are just blindly following the blind. Instead of protesting people should be educating themselves on what is really going on.

Oracle

-- Ries Oracle (RiesOracle@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.


John there are serval inconsistancies in your logic here. I find your position on this disturbing and lacking in knowledge of case law.

Paul has highlighted just one inconsistancy with your line of reasoning above. There are many many others- surely you must see them? But lets ignore those and just focus on your attempted angle- The rule of law.

I am no expert in US case law and States differ yet some general lessons hold true as a minimum.

1)if a private property owner benefits enough from the general populace, the right to exclude a person from the property is significantly weakened, if that person is involved in lawful free speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2) The extent the owner opens his business up to the public determines the extent to which then the owner's right to exclude members of the general public overpowers a person's right to free speech under the U.S. Constitution. In simple terms John... the larger the business, the greater the rights of freedom of speech.

3) While some states may EXTEND the free speech rights given by the Supreme Court in reagrd to the first amendment they may not reduce them as far as I was lead to believe.

John I suggest you read some case law starting with US Supreme Court Pruneyard decision and its implications so you can offer more informed legal opinions in the future.

Should you be aware of case law that upholds your belief that this man wearing a peace tshirt does not have the right to do so in a privately owned "public" mall I would graciously apologise and ask for you to provide me with the details.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 06, 2003.


Reis

FYI many of those protestors were not anti semetic, some (like our Pope and the rest of the world) may consider there is a need for Israel and AMerican policy towards Palestine to change, so that a viable Palesitain state can emerge. There is a difference.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.



The same thing could be asked about Saddam. Why doesn't he disarm like the pope demands?

...the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and [fulfill] its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms...

How come no one is quoting the pope on this aspect?

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.


Hi Hollis Ive always maintained Saddam is one very unpleasant evil man, I have no problem with the Pope also thinking this. Indeed Im very happy you also think this becuase at least it shows you follow our Pope on something (joke... I know you are a devout Catholic with a great deal of book knowledge). Yet you fail to do so with the issue at hand- not attacking Iraq. I wonder why? Avtually I dont really wonder youve made it clear why before.

John I hope youre not going to get offended but I missed your final quip, (directed at Chris Coose perhaps?). Im sorry but I cant let you go by unchallenged, and I know, dollar to a donut you will come back at me with something intresting so we all win eh.

You should note that while the case law I gave you was from California(where else) its implications on the US Supreme Court on this issue have been huge. Right that quote of yours....

Discontented liberals who were born in America can easily emigrate to France, where the percentage of non-Muslims is shrinking.

Is this meant to be funny?????????This is a bizzare comment to make, at such a time, sometimes you are a very odd individual. If this is a comment directed at Mr Coose, an apology is in order.

I'm sure youre aware that France had a number of Northern African Muslim colonies and that since the early 60's large numbers of Muslims have moved to France. This is not a new "problem", and it is very difficult to determine the % of Muslims in France due to privacy laws but it is estimated at anywhere between 2-5% of the total population.

More intresting is the rapid rise of Islam in your own country, something you did not mention. I believe that in the last ten years the United States has experienced a huge rise of between 100-120 PERCENT IN THE LAST TEN YEARS no less!!!!!!!!!! Yes America has well over a 1 million Muslims. What you also failed to realise is that Muslims in France are exceedingly loyal to their State and President, something that was shown in the last Gulf war and their support for it.

More apt to a Catholic forum is not your ill thought out quip but that discontented conservative republican *Catholics*, who were born in America can easily change religions to the "Cult of Dubbya", or alternatively just become Baptist.

Lol, I can see this thread dragging out and getting nasty like old times so Ill leave you with the last word... ps excuse my spelling and grammar is really disturbing

Blessings John

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.


The store owners can keep on enforcing those dress code laws or whatever laws. But, if things get too strict, those store owners will start crying over the lost profits when people think twice about risking their civil rights and choosing not to shop at their malls.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.


Kiwi,

I did a quick internet search and could not even find a single article, or even verification of an individual named Stephen Downs, in connection with Guilderland, New York.

The facts in this story just don't add up. No one gets arrested for wearing a Peace T-Shirt. There is no law against Peace T-shirts!

Can you find any other facts to back up this story? If not, I would take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes, the media has a way of hyping things up until it hardly resembles what actually took place. Believe me, if this actually took place, "Stephen Downs" would be on every morning news program being touted by the adoring press as some kind of hero.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 07, 2003.


Anna:

I didn't believe it at first, either, but apparently, it did happen.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), March 07, 2003.


From Jake's article:

Chief Murley said that one of his officers had tried for an hour to persuade Mr Downs to end a stand-off with two security guards who stopped him and his son after a shopper reported a confrontation with passers-by that she thought might turn nasty. But, as one guard pointed out three times in his deposition to police, he did so “in a nice way”. The other guard took a tougher line, alleging that the men were “bothering” shoppers by telling them why they opposed the “pending war with Iraq”. Chief Murley said that the shopping centre had signs advising customers that the “wearing of apparel likely to provoke disturbances” was banned.

This shouldn't suprise people, abortion protestors have been subject to the same thing for a long time. Is it suddenly an issue now that it's about something other than fighting abortion, or what?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 07, 2003.


Jmj

Thanks, Paul, for that amendment to your previous post. You wrote: "That argument would stand up if (1) such a dress code were posted on every entrance to the food court, and (2) if it was broad in scope (no T-shirts allowed)".

I have the distinct impression that you and Kiwi missed the fact that I have not been speaking here in terms of morality but merely legality. I wrote the following in my first message, but have since then been wrongly painted as some kind of warmonger who approves of bigotry/discrimination: "I myself don't think that people should be prohibited from wearing 'peace' shirts ... ". In other words, I think that it was unjust for the mall owner to do what he did -- but "injustice" does not equate to "crime" in the secular law. The owner had the liberty to do what he did, even if it may have been sinful.

I don't actually agree with you that a dress code needs to be "posted." When private property is involved, the code can be delivered orally when required. [Remember: I am speaking of legality, not morality.]
I also disagree with your belief that the dress code must be "broad in scope." To be legal, it can be narrow, even ruling out specific statements. For example, t-shirts can be OK except if they state obscenities ... or except if they are anti-religious ... or except if, in owner's judgment, they could instigate conflict on the premises. These are the prerogatives of an owner on his private property. If these are denied, then there is no protection given to a priest, on private property (inside a church), to prohibit people from standing up and arguing with him during a homily. Many other examples could be given.

Paul, I agree with part of your final sentence: "Otherwise it is not a 'dress code' but a clear discrimination against the free speech of another person."

Actually, it is a legal "dress code" and it is also a legal form of "discrimination." Not all discrimination is illegal. If the owner had given the patron a hard time because of something over which he had no control (e.g., sex, race, disability) -- now that would have been illegal, says our law and courts. But the owner is permitted to discriminate against the patron for something over which the latter has control (i.e., his garments).

God bless you.
John
PS: Kiwi, I need to re-read your comments and decide whether or not I want to respond. My initial reaction was not favorable, because I felt accosted -- ironically, almost as accosted as the arrested man in the story felt. I am not interested in getting into unnecessary conflicts here at the forum.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.


Dear John,

The whole incident had nothing to do with dress codes. The man wasn't arrested because he wore a T-shirt. He wasn't arrested because he wore a printed T-shirt. Undoubtedly many other people in the food court were wearing printed T-shirts. He was arrested because he stated his beliefs. It was a direct attack on his statement of belief, not his clothing. And that is why it was a clear violation of his constitutional rights.

As for being on "private property" - when the owners of a piece of property open it up to the public, they assume the legal obligation of respecting the human, civil, and constitutional rights of that public which they have invited onto the property.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2003.


Jmj

Paul, you are mistaken -- both about the dress code and particularly in what you just said about a person's assumption of obligations on private property. I've tried two or three ways of explaining these things to you, above, but you have not grasped the facts.

This makes me feel the way that you have surely felt when you have tried numerous ways to convey a Catholic truth to a non-Catholic, but without any success. That non-Catholic had preconceived false ideas or prejudices, and it was not possible for you to break through them. Similarly, you have preconceived false ideas here, and I am unable to break through them.

It is a virtue, Paul, whenever you stand up for what you believe when it is true, but it is a vice whenever you keep standing up for what you believe when it is wrong. Fortunately for us Catholics here, almost everything you believe and defend here at the forum is correct -- and you have great skill at explaining the truth. But when you get something wrong, we are all in trouble -- because you use that same skill in defending it, and you appear unable to admit that you are wrong.

It seems that, with all due respect, I need to remind you that your ordination as a deacon does not prevent you from being wrong about things. After all, we frequently see even priests and bishops (even cardinals) stating things that are wrong. [This current thread painfully reminds me of another thread, a few months ago, in which I could not dislodge you from an incorrect belief about the Bible.]

Paul, I have chosen to try to avoid nagging people, so I will just have to drop the subject of this legal problem completely now.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.


end blockquote (I hope)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.

Sorry! It was my fault (a typo in closing the quote).

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.


Kiwi,

I don't disagree with the Holy Father on not attacking Iraq. I hope and pray it can be avoided. But if you read the Catechism, it clearly states regarding the principles of Just War:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

"Prudential judgment" means that this requires a judgment of an individual or group (in this case, those responsible for the common good) in applying the objective principles for the norms of Just War.

In this case, President Bush does have the responsiblity for the common good of the US citizens (and one could make the argument that being the commander and chief of the most powerful army in the world, that this responsiblity extends that of the US borders). The Chruch (and I'm sure the Holy Father) is aware that these leaders are going to be privy to certain intelligence information that the Pope may not be and that this is not ultimately the call of the Holy Father, but those leaders of countries.

The US bishops in their statment opposing the use of force make this very point:

...we acknowledged that 'people of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases,' but made the prudential judgment that "based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."

So maybe I'm not so wayward after all ;-) to raise the question that it would not necessarily be an objective moral evil for the US to use military force to disarm Iraq.

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.


Kiwi,

One last thing. You state:

Yet you fail to [follow the Pope] with the issue at hand- not attacking Iraq. I wonder why? Actually I dont really wonder. You've made it clear why before.

Fill me in. I never made the point that I'm not following the Pope on this matter. So assuming that I did, what are my motivations for doing so? Please fill me in since you seem to know my thoughts better than I.

(I did question why the Holy Father insists on looking to the UN as the utliamate authority in a later post in another thread, and I did state that there could be scenarios where the Just War norms could be met, but I don't see how you jumped to your conclusion.)

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 07, 2003.


Hi Hollis I think Ive pretty much laid out the basis to my objections on that other thread.

Blessings

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AYSn

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.


Okay. I responded at the thread on Just War so I'll cut off this discussion with you in this thread.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 08, 2003.

Kiwi, I fail to see your point about the t-shirt... what has that to do with the topics original question or my request?

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Jehovah Witness in Italy. Once I asked him to explain how the Papacy could possibly be blamed for the communist Mayor of Rome's policies, he switched the topic to "and another thing..." completely off topic.

Just odd. kinda funny though. pax

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.


Hi Joe I was merely offereing that we should also pray not only with the tyrants who are enimies of peace as you and John stressed but those tyrants within AMerica who oppose peace. This was a perfect example of such dangerous anti peace people. Quite relevant I would have thought.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 10, 2003.


Kiwi... um, "tyrants" is not the term to call someone who exercises his right to private property and "freedom" fighter or "hero" is not the term to use for some guy who trespasses, refuses to leave peacefully when asked and is otherwise a pain. The guy is perfectly free to go picket in front of the White House. The government has not abridged his freedom of speech - but guess what! In America freedom of speech does not give people the right to be heard or the right to go where ever and say whatever they want.

Freedom in any constitutional republic is conditional, not absolute.

If you choose to invade someone's space don't be amazed if you get arrested for it. Most Americans get this. It's called live and let live. The t-shirt guy wasn't just walking through the mall MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS... he was getting into arguments, striking up conversations, picking arguments with passerbys... low class.

So much for the so-called "peacemakers" - they go pick fights and now want to sue someone! Ha! Some peaceful people they are.

Of course, being Americans we naturally have to be like cowboys and get in other peoples' faces right? we can't help it. It's cultural I suppose... And in a multicultural world people just have to learn to accept others for what they are. America is the sole Hyper-power on earth, so golly gee, we just have to police the world don't you know Kiwi? ;-p

So since we are the police, and since terrorism is against us in particular, if you are against the police... you are either neutral or against us... if you are neutral, you are really against us...

Oh wait! But of course! the UN can and has acted to stop aggression without the United States.... for example... well then there was um... or maybe... come to think of it Kiwi, I can't recall a single instance when the "UN" stopped any war or policed any action without US involvement...

Have fun without us boys. It'll be fun to watch the rest of the world get on without us and US.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.


Im confused. Upthread you were asking people to join the Pope and pray for peace, yet it seems as though people who support peace are nothing but an object for derision and scorn to you. A conflict of interest exists for you maybe was it just a rush of patriotic blood?

Joe what I was trying to illustrate is that there are some American people, perhaps even a majority who are opposed to trying to find a peaceful solution and believe war is the only option. They are so determined to have a war that people who wear peace T-shirts are regarded as the enemy! Perhaps they are the enemy of peace?

They want to "open a can of whip arse" on Saddam and teach him a lesson. Im a realist and realise the geo politics and realities going on. Im not in some warm fuzzy dream land. I have sympathies with this gung ho, kick arse approach of conservative eye for an eye yanks (and would like to discuss the historical and cultural factors especially Europe’s experiences of war last century Vs US and lessons learned as well as Americas more fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity) but ultimately believe it must be a last resort. That 1 Iraqi life is just as valuable as 1 American life.

I've read very carefully the Catholic just war doctrine, and quite simply IMHO and the Popes and all the worlds Bishops we as Catholics cannot support a war given the present circumstances. I ask you examine your heart a bit deeper and put aside any conflicts you may have to see the truth as The Vicar of Christ sees it.

I don’t want to get into an argument with you about the first amendment other than to say I believe you do not understand either the facts of the case at hand nor the legality of his actions in regard to the first amendment. You disagree; fair enough I can’t be bothered arguing about it.

I can understand you rushing to the defence of your great country. I would expect nothing less of a true American citizen and I mean that most sincerely. I have already expressed my gratitude for the role America plays in the world to you but that does not mean you are always right, nor the dissent should be brushed aside as simple anti- Americanism.

Of course, being Americans we naturally have to be like cowboys and get in other peoples' faces right? we can't help it. It's cultural I suppose... And in a multicultural world people just have to learn to accept others for what they are. America is the sole Hyper-power on earth, so golly gee, we just have to police the world don't you know Kiwi? ;-p

I dont really understand your point- are you being sarcastic?

So since we are the police, and since terrorism is against us in particular, if you are against the police... you are either neutral or against us... if you are neutral, you are really against us...

Again what point are you making?- sorry I aint too bright sometimes.

Oh wait! But of course! the UN can and has acted to stop aggression without the United States.... for example... well then there was um... or maybe... come to think of it Kiwi, I can't recall a single instance when the "UN" stopped any war or policed any action without US involvement... Have fun without us boys.

I can think of plenty. Joe please take the time to find out what the United Nations actually does before making statements like this. Search for “East Timor” to find out what non American (NEW ZEALAND!!!!!!!!!!!!) troops have done there lately . This sort peacemaking and keeping is carried out all the time. Of course its not as exciting as having CNN show smart bombs being dropped on schools but hey never mind.

It'll be fun to watch the rest of the world get on without us and US.

From a previous post to you Joe…

“Firstly in regard to US isolationism, I find your view of the UN as disappointing but not surprising. Such thoughts on isolationism are nothing new and your thinly disguised distrust/ hatred(?)of such organizations is nothing new-in fact it is a prerequisite for all right wing Americans. The position is a sad one because US reluctance/isolationism is the very reason why it is unable to operate effectively= even more distrust of the UN in America. A vicious circle. This leads to a train of thought common in the US "it’s our way, or it’s no way". Incredibly destructive for both the US and for the world. The alternatives for world peace and stability are not between unilateralism or isolationism but multilateralism through the UN. The Un fails because of US apathy/arrogance/ignorance. As grateful as the world is for all you do, we don’t OWE American anything, we ALL made huge sacrifices in the world wars BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Yet it only became the “right thing” for the American government when American soil was bombed…the logic there is?????? Its not as though Russia constantly bleats about how its never recognized for “saving the world”, but WW2 may not have been won without them, but every right wing American will do this to justify the indefensible. My advice to those Americans who shun the UN-read Papal encyclicals on multilateralism.”

Joe I think Atilla's advice is true. Im not going to budge you an inch on this I know and probably vice versa so Ill let you have the last reply and sign off.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 11, 2003.


Topping for Joe, whose "last reply" Kiwi wants.
(Kiwi, you can't "budge" Joe "an inch," because he's right, and he knows it.)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 11, 2003.

Kiwi, I was actually being sarcastic there. Sorry.

Bravo for the brave NZ army in East Timor! BTW, a good friend of mine is soon to relocate to NZ. I think it's a breathtakingly gorgeous country. Which island do you live in?

Most of the arguments pro/con - when not based on cliches and slogans boil down to presumptions and "public knowledge" stuff which may or may not be "internet myth" based. As I've repeatedly argued, the Just War argument pivots on information. The US has (as I think we can all admit) the best military intelligence available in the world. The Vatican does not. This isn't an anti-Vatican observation. We should be happy the Pope has no spies or spy satellites!

As for the Pope being well informed by his diplomats...well, his nuncios have been slow on other issues too - which doesn't make his job any easier. George Weigel makes this point in his book "Courage to be Catholic" in which the sex-scandal in the US this past year just didn't get much play in European media...and most Vatican bureaucrats read predominately European sources... they are also not very web-savy...so are not up to speed as Americans are. They fumbled the ball big time in easy-to-avoid ways, and because they failed to inform the Pope as they might have, his reaction wasn't as effective as it could have been... Now this doesn't mean it's his fault. It just means he can't be expected to know everything.

None of the above makes them bad people or anti-American or less authoritative on faith and morals. But it IS crucial to note that if your information stream is not up to par, your moral conclusions about the licitness or justice of a particular situation will of course be affected.

I think that given the full facts the Pope would agree with the President. He still may. Diplomacy is still being tried. We've amassed the troops and carriers and they're getting acclimatized... Hopefully the credible threat of force - which directly led Iraq to accept "inspectors" back in will pay off with Saddam & company going into exile without bloodshed.

If war is thus avoided then the military saber rattling will have paid off, a total win-win. If not, and we invade, justice at least on Saddam & company will be meted out.

Either way, with the UN or without it, the USA is going to be visiting down town Bagdad. Now once 22 million Iraqis start dancing in the streets...how will all you "peace at all costs" folk feel?

If I were you, I'd feel almost disappointed! I know alot of anti- American Americans were miffed by the Afgan street parties! The feminists were so utterly unprepared that they didn't know what to do on behalf of their sisters newly liberated by icky-all male SOF forces.

I just think you are all setting yourselves up for a moral defeat. How liberation can be construed as being a worse evil than current and enduring dictatorship and brinksman-ship with WMD is beyond me. Still you are basing your fears on something. I just wish you'd share the facts such fears are based on with the rest of us.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.


the Just War argument pivots on information

-- WOOOOOOOW. you can give all the information you like to someone who is blinded by the need for revenge, or greed, or whatever. this simplistic statement re-invents Catholic theology. isn't the Catholic "Just War" doctrine far more distinguished than this?

Now once 22 million Iraqis start dancing in the streets...how will all you "peace at all costs" folk feel?

-- does this make it a just war?? where does Catholic theology state that "dancing in the streets" make it "just" in terms of Catholic theology. the position of the Vatican takes into account ALL the many aspects of a very SOPHISTICATED crisis.

If I were you, I'd feel almost disappointed! I know alot of anti- American Americans were miffed by the Afgan street parties! The feminists were so utterly unprepared that they didn't know what to do on behalf of their sisters newly liberated by icky-all male SOF forces.

-- this is ad hominem bigotry. shame on you.

I just think you are all setting yourselves up for a moral defeat.

-- the morality of the invasion of Iraq is not determined by the military outcome. regardless of who prevails, the morality is determined by Catholic teaching. this is basic Catholic theology.

How liberation can be construed as being a worse evil than current and enduring dictatorship and brinksman-ship with WMD is beyond me.

-- this is naive. it ignores all the wider issues.

Still you are basing your fears on something. I just wish you'd share the facts such fears are based on with the rest of us.

-- The Pope has very many concerns about this war. you should research this further.

OVERALL, there is no attempt to marry this opinion to Catholic beliefs. why has this message been posted on a Catholic web-site??

God Bless you.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com

-- Holy Bush (Bush.Holy@Catholic.gov.com), March 13, 2003.


"the morality of the invasion of Iraq is not determined by the military outcome. regardless of who prevails, the morality is determined by Catholic teaching. this is basic Catholic theology."

The above is a clear case of a logical tautology: "Something is bad because I say it is bad, and I say it is bad because it is bad."

Yet Catholic Moral Theology recognizes that the moral value of any action is based on many interrelated factors: motive, the action involved, and the effects. Catholic Morality is NOT ARBITRARY!

Why does the Church teach this possible war to be "unjust" - that's the question!

Just War theory is based on a few clear requirements:

Motive of self-defense: Last resort: Legitimate Authority: Likely success: Limited death and destruction: Proportional response:

MOTIVE: Our motive is to safeguard our people as well as liberate those who are oppressed by an illegitimate regime.

LAST RESORT: After 12 years of UN sanctions, inspections, and unanimous resolutions, as well as six months of last-chances in which easy to reach goals were spelled out and rejected... there are no viable alternatives to war. The Vatican has called for "alternatives" but has been very careful to not provide any specific ideas. France and Russian have called for "alternatives" and "more diplomacy" without offering any alternatives which have a hope of actually changing the situation for the better.

LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY: Bush is the legitimately elected leader of the United States and since the US alone is capable of enforcing UN resolutions the de facto responsibility lies with us - and not on Cameroon, Angola, France, or China. The United States is also one of the agrieved parties - besides the enslaved Iraqi people.

LIKELY SUCCESS: US victory is 100% guaranteed.

LIMITED DEATH AND DESTRUCTION: Only the US is trained with modern weaponry which is capable of discriminating between friend and foe, soldier and civilian. We have been encouraging the Iraqi Army to surrender and refuse to fight, thereby avoiding even deaths of soldiers. If Iraq has no WMD - as the peace-niks insist, then there is no danger of civilians dying by gas or bugs is there?

PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE: The only proportionate response to a nation- wide program of WMD development and terror training is a ground invasion - of liberating the Iraqi people rather than nuking them, and of re-directing the political motive for WMD (Saddam and Baath party ambitions) towards peaceful ends (rebuilding and improving Iraq).

Every other "plan" merely maintains the status quo which is not healthy for either the Iraqi people or the safety of the world.

Catholicism is not arbitrary! Things are not right or wrong based on a whim of some Pope! The Pope has moral authority in cases of faith and morals based on scripture, tradition, and reason. Humanae Vitae is not right just because the Pope says so! It's right because it's in harmony with Revelation and Reason! Contraception is wrong not just because the Pope says so! It's wrong because it's against the truths revealed by God to the human race and against reason!

But when I ask you for the moral reasons against a US liberation of Iraq, you claim "because the Church says so". But WHY? And you HAVE NO RESPONSE!

How liberation can be construed as being a worse evil than current and enduring dictatorship and brinksman-ship with WMD is beyond me.

Still you are basing your fears on something. I just wish you'd share the facts such fears are based on with the rest of us.

BEFORE YOU JUDGE ME OR AFFIRM THAT I'VE NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK OR KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING OR PHILOSOPHY, YOU'D BETTER PROVE THAT YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST WAR IS BASED ON REASONS, SCRIPTURE, TRADITION, AND CLASSICAL MORAL ARGUMENTS...NOT ON "WELL THE POPE SAYS SO" - WHICH St Thomas Aquinas calls - the weakest of arguments. Even the Pope's encyclical letters are not arbitrary exercises in Papal whim: He explains why X moral teaching is moral and authentically a teaching.... so far you have not provided us with any argument.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.


Hi, Joe

In my opinion someone has used two different handles in this thread when dialoging with you. Some people are obsessed with the possibility of us going to fight in this just war.

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), March 14, 2003.


"us"?!?!

you mean "them".

-- Our Brave Boys (easyto.sayit@fromhere.com), March 14, 2003.


"Only the US is trained with modern weaponry which is capable of discriminating between friend and foe, soldier and civilian."

This single sentence blows your whole argument.
You might want to read up on the new "mother of all bombs", tested the other day and the "daisy cutter". These weapons of mass destruction are meant to do anything but discriminate and you can best bet the DOD will be using them in the inital assault for their "psychological effect" (whatever the hell that means).

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 14, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Joe and Chris C.

Joe, you asked, "Why does the Church teach this possible war to be 'unjust' -- that's the question!"
I would recommend that you word the question in this way:
"Why do some Church leaders opine that, based on the knowledge they now have, this possible conflict would not meet 'just war criteria?'"

The key distinctions I am making are:
(1) It is not "the Church" speaking, but individuals.
(2) Those leaders who are speaking are not "teaching" nor "binding," but "opining."
(3) The speakers' comments are always conditional, because they are based on partial facts (i.e., only those known to them).


Chris C, I am sad to see that, after a couple years of visiting the forum, you still have not learned objectively to gather facts and to reflect on them before speaking -- but that you continue to use knee-jerk, emotional, liberal reactions on almost every issue. I will demonstrate by breaking apart your post:

(a) "This single sentence blows your whole argument." [You were referring to Joe's words: "Only the U.S. is trained with modern weaponry which is capable of discriminating between friend and foe, soldier and civilian."]

No, Chris. Any inaccuracy in Joe's comment does not "blow his whole argument." All the rest of his argument continues to stand. Moreover, the statement you quoted came from his "Limited Death and Destruction" paragraph. It is probably true that the non-military deaths and destruction will not be as limited as Joe's (quoted) sentence implies that they will be. However, proportionate to the amount of munitions used, the non-military deaths and destruction will be far more limited than in any past conflict, due to the much more widespread use of computerized/GPS targeting.

(b) "You might want to read up on the new 'mother of all bombs,' tested the other day and the 'daisy cutter.' These weapons of mass destruction are meant to do anything but discriminate ..."

False. If you go to anti-war sources, you get less than the truth. These huge bombs will not be used in cities/towns, but where military targets exist -- AND most of them too will be guided by computerized/GPS targeting.

(c) "... and you can best bet the DOD will be using them in the inital assault for their 'psychological effect' (whatever the hell that means)."

The "DoD" is protecting your life and mine. I am very happy that they will use the big bombs for their "psychological effect" -- i.e., to "persuade" the shocked/frightened soldiers and officers to surrender. This will help to end the conflict quickly and save lives.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2003.


"This will help to end the conflict quickly and save lives." JFG

More speculative madness. Likely taken from Dr. Strangelove. Loving them bombs that save lives.


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 16, 2003.


An interesting article:

(...)

"But leaving Saudi Arabia off the list is a particular affront to fact and logic. In the desert kingdom, as the human rights report details, no religion other than Islam may be practiced in public; churches and synagogues are illegal. Non-Muslim worshipers, in fact, can be lashed, and proselytizing for any non-Muslim faith is illegal. Muslims who convert to other religions can be executed. And even those who advance Muslim teachings not sanctioned by the government are imprisoned. Shiite Muslims are discriminated against, and their clerics have been detained for long periods; their testimony can be excluded in court. People are arrested, even put to death, for practicing "magic." What does it mean to have a list of egregious violators of religious liberty and not include Saudi Arabia?

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher acknowledged that Saudi Arabia "came very close to the threshold." But he said the government's experts concluded unanimously that it was better to hold off and work with the monarchy to improve matters. One wonders whether Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan would have been granted such a reprieve had they not been important American allies."

(...)

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35566- 2003Mar16.html

-------

There are two countries with documented evidence of close links to Bin Laden: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, Bush tries to convince the world that Iraq must be invaded as a move in the “war against terrorism”. However hard the CIA and the FBI have tried to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, they could not find a hair as evidence. At the same time, no further evidence must be found about the links between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to Bin Laden. Most Sept/11 terrorists were Saudis, as Bin Laden himself. The Bin Laden family is incredibly wealthy and powerful in Saudi Arabia. The rank- and-file terrorist of Al-Quaeda are recruited and trained in Pakistan state-ruled schools.

But Bush sees this countries not only outside the “axis of evil” but as deserving being called "friends". In Iraq, there are Catholic Churches and even bishops. In Saudi Arabia, to be a Catholic (or anything non-muslim for that matter) means death. But Bush calls this nasty dictatorship “friends”. Why? Even the pro-war Washington Post calls this attitude a “political joke”.

Why don’t Bush wages war against Saudi Arabia? Why he goes as far as keeping Saudi Arabia out of this report, in an attitude the Washington Post calls “an affront to fact and logic”?

How can you expect that we believe in Bush’s good intentions?

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.


Atila,
You've got to add the US to the list with Pakistan and the Saudis in working with al Quida. We taught them how to fly.
It is easier to see that the dubbya has made a direct march to invasion of Iraq, since the sumprmes crowned him, than it is to see that he has been interested in a political solution.
His UN diversion was used solely to infulence a "coalition of the wanting" at which he did lousy.
Bombs Away!!!

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@mainr.rr.com), March 17, 2003.

"Why Iraq, why now"? wean't this was poor old Colin Powell said at the time? still sums it all up very well.

anyways, its all a little academic now. let us hope and pray that this is all over very quickly, with the absolute minimum of casualty, and with a peaceful aftermath for all concerned. in particuler, let us hope that if Iraq has WMD's, they are found and destroyed before they can be used.

-- Holy Bush (Bush.Holy@Catholic.gov.com), March 17, 2003.


Wait a second... are you guys in favor of a war with Saudi Arabia too?! Last I checked SA hasn't got NBC weapons or the means of producing them... and while its citizens are prone to be jihadists, its government is not as radically anti-US as Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

Therefore it is entirely logical for us to NOT EVER want to mess with them.

Secondly, precisely because there is a Catholic presence in Iraq, we should liberate them! Or do you think Catholics are better off living at the whim of a dictator? What is so sinister about freedom?

I have zero feelings of hatred for Iraqis - or Saudis. I dislike aspects of their moral and cultural lives*, but I wish them the best, and the best includes knowing, loving, and serving Jesus Christ.

The question is, how do we Catholics best serve them? Keeping them in bondage and slavery? Becoming isolationists? Abandoning the Middle East to its own devices? If we pull out of the Middle East - how will local and ordinary Muslims ever have a chance to meet Americans?

Gentlemen, beyond the issue of war or peace is the issue of evangelization - a very dicey and tricky subject. War is not an end in itself AND NEITHER IS PEACE.

The US is not - unlike standard Muslim conquest practice - going to outlaw muslim proselytism and practice (indeed we have NEVER outlawed Muslim proselytism and practice in any country or our own)... but under our aegis freedom of expression and religion MAY stand a chance of flowering.

From 636 AD until this week Iraqi Catholics have been allowed a status quo: no new churches, no new converts. Catholics are tolerated, barely. If a church falls into disrepair, it cannot be rebuilt. No new churches are built. This is the standard Islamic condition provided Christians everywhere: convert or remain the same without (non-natural) growth (and pay the faith-tax).

In the near future there may for the first time in 1000 years be a chance for Iraqis to choose which faith to belong to - and make the switch without fear of persecution and death.

But I suppose evangelization and freedom of religion are not worthy enough goals to shake up the status quo for eh?

*( While judging their morals and culture I also admit and grieve for American moral and cultural decay, crime, and barbarity. Moral relativism is not the answer though.)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Jmj

Thanks so much, Joe, for replying to Chris C and Atila. I admire your patience in enlightening them. I'm afraid that I can rarely move myself to even try to correspond with them any more, since I have seen years (Chris C of Maine) or months (Atila of Brazil) of horribly flawed messages from these poor guys -- full of factual errors and peppered with illogical "reasoning" on a myriad of subjects.

Although they will deny it, they are permeated, through and through, with a "blame-America-first" attitude, a love affair with almost all things liberal, and a hatred for almost all things conservative. They clutter the forum with political rubbish, too often without relating it to Catholicism (thus breaking a forum rule).

Well, I am relieved that, within a day or two, these endless anti-American tirades about why we shouldn't take military action will be at an end, because (barring the miracle of a Saddamic self-exile) there WILL be military action -- the Battle of Iraq (within the War on Terror), the much-needed liberation of the Iraqi people, the destruction of many weapons of mass destruction, and the end of power for people who would have used (or sold) those weapons.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.


" the Battle of Iraq (within the War on Terror), the much-needed liberation of the Iraqi people, the destruction of many weapons of mass destruction, and the end of power for people who would have used (or sold) those weapons."
If that is the criteria for military invasion..... na that would be too liberal of me to ask.
You really don't believe the anti-war, anti-dubbya ravings will quiet down now that the killing is about to begin?


-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 18, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Chris C.

You started to ask, "If that is the criteria for military invasion....."

I didn't mention "criteria," did I? What you quoted from me were some effects of the Battle, not criteria for waging it. I haven't yet talked about criteria at the forum. In fact, I haven't yet read most of the posts on the Iraq-related threads, because I have been too busy with the dozens of other threads. If time permits me to read the Iraq threads in the coming days, I will do so and may post a message about just-war criteria.

You also wrote: "You really don't believe the anti-war, anti-dubbya ravings will quiet down now that the killing is about to begin?"

I didn't say that "ravings will quiet down." However, they will be ravings of a different kind. I said that "these endless anti-American tirades about why we shouldn't take military action will be at an end." Notice that I mentioned "tirades" about what should happen with respect to Iraq in the future. Once military action begins, no one will be raving about what ought to be done in the days ahead. It will have already been done.

Oh, one last thing. Please refer to the Commander-in-Chief as "George Bush" or "President Bush" or "Mr. Bush." I am offended by your disrespectful references to "dubbya." There are people who use that nickname affectionately -- but you are not one of them, and you signal your hatred by not even capitalizing the nickname. If you can't convert yourself into a real American, you really should emigrate. (Maybe Atila can find a home and job for you in Brazil.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.


Hi, Joe.

Of course you didn’t get my point.

Of course I do not want USA to invade Saudi Arabia, the same way that the pope does not want USA to invade Iraq.

My point is to show that the White House propaganda is hypocritical when talking about invading Iraq for the sake of Democracy, Religious Liberty, Human Rights, Iraq’s people freedom etc. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are as disgusting dictatorships as Iraq is. But the White House calls them “friends” and, suddenly, religious freedom and democracy are not so important values after all. The White House goes so far as to exclude Saudi Arabia from a report listing countries where religious freedom does not exist. Wow, that’s coherence! Please notice that that article is nothing less than an editorial (official position) of a pro-war newspaper (Washington Post).

Is Pakistan dictatorship better than Iraq's? No. What's the difference then? Well, Pakistan is a geopolitical ally of the US, so the White House turns its face aside and pretends not to see what's going on there.

My point is that trying to convince people that the reasons why this war is being waged include such noble ones is plain manipulation and, ultimately, a gross lie. When a country is a US ally, it may go on with dictatorship, slash religious freedom, persecute and kill their own citizens and so on, without being not even reprimanded by US government. If the country becomes a US enemy, then all these things (democracy, religious freedom, human rights) suddenly become Great Values that justify waging war against them. Double standards, sheer hypocrisy.

What are the reasons then? Well, nobody can be absolutely sure about that, but I think the following list by Chris Butler is a very good try (he’ telling the difference between the circumstances under which the pope opposes this war and those under which Bush wants it):

“The Holy See has no oil interest in Iraq, no Persian Gulf War parade that it needed to do in order to make up for Vietnam, no skewed understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that leads to a misunderstanding of how the Arab world regards us, no politically neo- conservative wing of supporters to answer to, no campaign contributions to raise in 2004, no father who is perhaps most famous for allegedly not continuing with an invasion of Iraq to the end, etc. The Holy See's interest is in saving the most lives of everyone involved, and doing so morally. That is why the Holy See supported our actions after September 11, and opposes an invasion of Iraq now.”

Of course Catholics and other Iraqis would be better without Saddam. Nobody is saying otherwise.

Your words about evangelization are fair, and I praise you for your missionary zeal. However, the pope still opposes this war. Are you suggesting that the pope lacks missionary zeal, or that your missionary zeal is greater than the pope’s?

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.


No Atila, I'm not a better missionary than the Pope. He's a saint and will be remembered as "the Great" until the end of time.

I submit myself to his Magisterium regarding all things to do with Faith and morals.

But I also seek to inform my faith with reason, again, following his teaching in Fides et Ratio...

To wage war or not always includes arguments as to its licitness and morality...but it also included arguments as to its prudence.

I think the Pope is making the case that it would be imprudent. But I don't think he - or you - or anyone - has yet made the case that the war would be automatically evil just because the UN hasn't authorized it and the surrounding countries (and mobs) haven't voted in favor of it. Democracy does not make morality. You can't establish the moral goodness of some act by simply siding with the majority.

If the UN security council and 14 Muslim nations are in favor of annihilating the Jews would that make it moral?! What if the annihilation of the Jews would not spark a Christian armed or violent response? Would that make it OK?

Sometimes the right thing to do has bad consequences. But you don't refrain from doing what's right just because something bad "might" happen!

The Pope does have a stronger argument in warning about the repercussions - rapid anti-American Muslim extremism... but such a warning depends on many contingent things. After all, it's hard to see how things could be worse among the Muslim world. If Iraq is liberated and its people rejoice.... the Muslim extremists will be forced to reconsider their anger.

As for hypocrisy.... no, actually, Pakistan does have religious freedom on the books, though practically speaking every Majority Muslim nation merely tolerates Christians...no majority Muslim country allows Christian proselytism. But for all this, neither Saudia Arabia nor Pakistan has gone out of its way to officially sanction the creation of WMD while cultivating antagonistic official ties with terrorism.

If either had sided with the Taliban and Al-queda - thus showing them to be officially willing to use their weapons to kill Americans, we'd probably have invaded them by now too...

So there is no hyprocisy: Iraq has threatened the US and harbors those who threaten us. No other nation (besides Iran and NKorea) have done so...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Joe, I addressed your arguments about democracy, prudence and morality on the other thread.

You wrote:

“neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan has gone out of its way to officially sanction the creation of WMD while cultivating antagonistic official ties with terrorism”

Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Dictator Musharraf has huge problems to stay in power, given that Pakistan is the main source of and training facility of Al Qaeda militants. On the other hand, the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda are wishful thinking and remain to be demonstrated.

Can you quote something to the effect that Saddam threatened the US? Before Bush began putting his will to attack Iraq he of course shouted back, but, before that, he was essentially administering his petty dictatorship. Al Qaeda members are harbored and trained by Pakistan, not Iraq, despite all the lip service Musharraf pays to the US.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


I wrote:

“Before Bush began putting his will to attack Iraq he of course shouted back”

Of course, I meant: “AFTER Bush began putting his will to attack Iraq he of course shouted back”

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Joe.

Atila accurately quoted you as having stated: "... neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan has gone out of its way to officially sanction the creation of WMD while cultivating antagonistic official ties with terrorism."

At first, I thought that he had quoted this because he thought he could refute it. However, the information he provided after the quotation was not a refutation of what you said.

Therefore, you were correct:
1. Saudi Arabia is very far from perfect, but it does not have WMD, nor has it "cultivat[ed] antagonistic official ties with terrorism."
2. Pakistan is far from perfect, and it does have limited nuclear weapons, but has not "cultivat[ed] antagonisistic official ties with terrorism.

Clearly you were contrasting the above with Iraq, wherein the insane dictator has "gone out of [his] way to officially sanction the creation of WMD while cultivating antagonistic official ties with terrorism."

I admire you, Joe, for your firm grasp of the subject matter.
God bless you.
John
PS: The first strikes on Iraq came 30 minutes ago.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.


"PS: The first strikes on Iraq came 30 minutes ago. "

Are you so happy with that, John?

The pope is not.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Jmj

Poor Atila!

Take a close look at that sentence of mine that you quoted.
It exhibits not a trace of happiness.

You are pathetic in your misjudgments and false assumptions about me.
I am never happy about wars, destruction of property, killing, loss of money on weapons/munitions, etc..
The only happiness (of a sort) is in picturing the various positive, long-range results of what is taking place now.

May God forgive you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.


I am happy to hear that.

John, in all fairness: do you ever entertain the idea that God may have to forgive YOU?

Please, be humbler. You will become a better person. And a much more agreable one, too.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.


Jmj
Atila, replying to your mind-boggling comments ...

1. "John, in all fairness: do you ever entertain the idea that God may have to forgive YOU?" [Every day, sir. It was a sin for you to assume otherwise and to be so full of pride to ask me such a question.]

2. "Please, be humbler." [What you really want is for me to humiliate myself before you. I am humble to many people at this forum -- people who treat me like a human being. I have even been humble to you -- in the distant past, before you lost control of your explosive emotions and began posting authoritarian messages on subjects about which you know far too little. Mired in relative ignorance on most of the subjects to which you limit your comments, you are the one who needs to "be humbler." You could learn to "be humbler" by trying to help people at this forum -- answering questions, doing some apologetics, etc. -- instead of looking at only 10% of the threads and posting only self-aggrandizing, quasi-authoritative, mostly-political opinions. "Be humbler," by getting your hands a little dirty with some honest, hard work for a change. Except for two breaks of about six weeks each, I have been here every day for over three years, trying to read every post on every thread, so that I can try to help people. Relatively speaking, you haven't been here at all -- yet you have the nerve to lecture me? Like hell, you will, Mr. Proud-as-a-Peacock! "Please, be humbler" -- indeed!]

3. "You will become a better person. And a much more agreeable one, too." [Apparently you need to take your own advice, Atila. Take the beam out of your own eye.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Jmj

I want to draw out the contrast between us more clearly than I did in the previous message, Atila.
I wrote: "Except for two breaks of about six weeks each, I have been here every day for over three years, trying to read every post on every thread, so that I can try to help people. Relatively speaking, you haven't been here at all ..."
I said that last part because, though you started here in 1998 or 1999, you have been here so little that it is as though you started in mid-2002 (if all your days here were strung together consecutively).

Yes, Atila, you have usually dropped in just for a few days (to see if there is a hot topic that is of interest to you), but normally you have been away for 2, 3, 4, 5, even 6 months. But what kinds of things did an unavoidably ignorant "absentee" like you have the nerve to claim on another thread today? Read, and start beating your breast ...

1. You claimed that you are a "regular." [What a LIE!]
2. You claimed that David S has been "banned at least two times." [FALSE!]
3. You claimed that Anna and Mateo should reprimand me ["correct his manners"], as though they don't know me better than you do. [You told them that I "can defend [my]self, can't" I? But you need them to criticize me? Can't you "defend [your]self"? Hypocrite.]
4. You claimed the right to ask, "Has anybody here seen John, even one time, acknowledge that HE, John, is human and capable of error?" [You pretend to know about me, but you have been away so much that you don't know me at all. Not only have I acknowledged my inferiority to others -- and my fallibility, I have apologized for errors I have made, on numerous occasions.]
5. You claimed the right to duplicate error #4 by arrogantly stating, "And, of course, there ARE occasions when [John] is wrong, although I can remember him admitting it NOT EVEN ONCE (except for minor things like misspelling or dates) in three or four years here."
[How in the heck can you "remember" what I have admitted when you have been a big-time absentee -- and, when present, you read only 10% of threads. You know almost NOTHING about me, what I have admitted, etc..]

Then, as if the above list of injustices and dishonesties were not enought, you crammed that other thread full of other horrors ...

1. After quoting something I wrote to Paul, you criticized me for first praising him greatly and for then adding that he is "human and capable of error." You found this a "bit strange" of me? But only a person who takes no time to thing things through -- like you, Atila -- would find it a "bit strange." The fact that I spoke of Paul as better educated, more experienced, and a better writer than me does not preclude the possibility that he can make mistakes at the same time that I have a correction to share with him. Analogy: Even a little child sometimes can correct an adult who makes a mistake.

2. After quoting something else I wrote to Paul, you tried to turn it around on my by calling it "projection." You were wrong, because you failed to see the differences between Paul and me that kept it from being "projection":
(a) He is a deacon, but I am a layman, so his word carries far more weight with readers here than mine. [My comments are frequently rejected, while his almost never are.]
(b) He is far more eloquent than I am, so this aids his credibility over mine.
(c) I admit to being wrong when I am so proved (contrary to what you thought), but Paul has made only one admission of error in his several months here.

And so, Atila, that is why I was right -- and did not use "projection" -- when I wrote: "It is a virtue, Paul, whenever you stand up for what you believe when it is true, but it is a vice whenever you keep standing up for what you believe when it is wrong. Fortunately for us Catholics here, almost everything you believe and defend here at the forum is correct -- and you have great skill at explaining the truth. But when you get something wrong, we are all in trouble -- because you use that same skill in defending it, and you appear unable to admit that you are wrong."

3. "So, for his own good, and that of all we people here, a 'fraternal correction' is really what [John] needs to receive urgently."
A "fraternal correction" is what you need, Atila -- which is why I am giving it to you.

4. "I see that he has become a true occasion of sin for people who tend to be hot blooded."
The sin is in the heart of hot-blooded people like you, Atila. Don't try to blame me for your short-comings. People are not "occasions of sin." The occasion of sin for you is this forum. You keep coming back to it and sinning every time you do. But then (like a former regular) you go into denial, resist admitting your sins of anger, and try to blame them on me. So, Atila, do what a person is supposed to do, please -- avoid your occasion of sin (the forum) -- or learn to overcome your sin and continue to come here.

5. "Please note that there is no other people here that make other people's blood boil"
If this whole subject were not so serious, you would have me rolling on the floor laughing. Plenty of blood has boiled here when I haven't been around. Others have boiled your blood besides me, and you have boiled the blood of several people in your rare appearances. Try not to lie about me by making me out to be some kind of unique villain.

6. "I will not speak about this anymore. I assure you that I am doing so in the best interest of the peaceful coexistence here."
Oh, come on, Atila. Without a big change, you will be unable to be silent about this. You are doing this, not so much for "peaceful coexistence," but because you want to be able to post your comments unopposed.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Jmj

Unfortunately, Atila, it was not until after I had posted all the strong language (above) that I found your "olive branch" near the bottom of this thread.

I gladly accept the truce you appear to be offering.
However, there are about eight war-related threads that I have only partly, or not at all, read thus far. My intention is to read them if I can find time. I may want to respond on one or more of them. If I do so, though, I will not mention you specifically. I will try to concentrate on the words spoken, rather than who has spoken them.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Deal done, John!

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ