L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
He has a reason. It’s so he can make you into a straw man, cut you down, pound his chest and claim victory and then mock you. It’s his MO.
- Status
F
frankadams
Guest
Catholic social teaching is voluminous. This might go faster if you tell me which dimensions of Church social teaching you feel I am misrepresenting, in which case I will try to provide specific citations.
The official Republican platform of 2004 is 92 pages long. Dissecting all of it is no mean task. I will try to go in order, but also link appopriate issues as I go. The link for the platform is gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
The Patriot Act - Fully supported in the platform. The USCCB has criticized multiple dimensions of this law.
Interrogation Techniques - The Catechism speaks out against torture. The Vatican signed on to the UN Declaration on Torture, which also condemns it, but more importantly for our purposes, defines it. Some of the techniques publicly supported by the current administration violate the definitions of this Declaration. The USCCB also spoke out against these same techniques. The Administration has defined these techniques in a different manner than Mother Church.
The USCCB also criticized Bush’s signing statement on the Anti-Torture Amendment which stated that the President could violate the Amendment in the interests of national security (presumably emergencies and “ticking time-bomb” scenarios).
The War in Iraq - Fully supported in the platform. Condemned by both the Vatican and the USCCB in the strongest of terms. Prior to the war, both the Vatican and the USCCB saw it as violating multiple criteria of Just War Theory. Those objections have been made more valid since the manipulation of intelligence data has been made public, thereby making an unjust war even more unjust.
What is especially heartbreaking is that most of the dire predictions about the war have been fulfilled. This is especially true in terms of loss of life and the enormity of the human suffering brought on by the war.
I will try to continue making my way through the Republican platform as time allows. Thanks for your patience.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You said, and I quote:
That’s being an apologist for abortion – it’s a flat statement that women have “no choice but to commit an illegal act.”
Specifically what programs were “slashed?”
And what do these programs have to do with abortion?
And you keep pretenting that women “have no choice” but to have abortions because some unspecified programs were “slashed indiscriminately.”
That’s being an apologist for abortion – and trying to cover it by pretending that somehow government programs prevent abortion.
Shame on you!
F
frankadams
Guest
Your term “cannot” which you have written in boldface confuses me. Why is it that a “pro-life” president “cannot” apply a litmus test when the left does it on the other side of the issue? Why is it that the Senate has apparently made it possible to assemble a pro-abortion force in the court, but not a pro-life one? Why is it that the “pro-life” party did not block pro-abortion nominees?
Is it that the party is weak and ineffectual? Is that why the Republican party appointed six of the nine justices that put Roe into law in 1973 and eight of the nine justices that upheld Roe in 1992? Are we supposed to give them a blank check for another thirty-five years of the slaughter of our unborn and hope that they will suddenly reverse their colossal failure on this issue?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
When you try to blow smoke up me kilts like that, it tickles.
You were the one who said the Republican plaform contradicted Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on** you**.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Because the party of abortion is too strong – they can block votes on nominees, or even flat turn them down.
When we have pro-lifers take that line, it’s no wonder the pro-life forces cannot prevail.
It’s a long, hard fight, and the fact that we can make progress only in the face of determined resistance is transformed into an argument that we aren’t trying, so we might as well give up.
F
frankadams
Guest
Vern, I have done many presentations on Catholic social justice teaching. I have given you three points on which to begin this exchange: The Patriot Act, torture, and the war in Iraq.When you try to blow smoke up me kilts like that, it tickles.
You were the one who said the Republican plaform contradicted Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on** you**.
Let’s take the war: I have copied and distributed hundreds of copies of official documents of both the Vatican and the USCCB on the War in Iraq. If you were standing here, I would happily open up my desk and hand you one.
I know much of the content of those letters almost by heart, so it seems silly to me to have to prove that the Church spoke out against the war when almost everyone else on this board knows it to be true.You have already asked me to go through the entire official Republican social platform, which I have agreed to do. It will be a long and exhausting task. But if I have to stop to find out, for example, which specific paragraph in the Catechism denounces torture, I will likely be unable to continue.
I thought I offered a fair compromise. I am open to another way to address your obligation, but I hope you would not consider my offer simply “blowing smoke up your kilts.”
B
BamaRider
Guest
Jimbo came on and said this in reference to a conversation Vern was havin with Joe-
So Vern called Jimbo out, something libs ain’t use to-
With the SoCal on hiatus, LCMS was just out here lurking when he read what was goin on and posted THIS-
Is this the part where Vern starts thinkin like a Protestant or does that come later?
F
frankadams
Guest
This gets to my original point: Why isn’t the party of life as strong? This is the party that I am told I must support at the risk of “compromising my soul,” but they just can’t handle those big bully liberals? Man, I wish God would place my entire eternal fate on a more effective party!
Republicans had every opportunity to block votes on pro-abortion nominees. Why didn’t they if they truly are the pro-life party?
Furthermore, this supposedly super-strong party of abortion did not block votes on either of Bush’s nominees. Myers withdrew after her credentials were roundly questioned (fairly, I think). For the record, I think her replacement, Chief Justice Roberts, is downright brilliant.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Vern gave Frank a homework assignment-
As far as the Patriot Act, and torture, the Republicans do not support the wholesale torture of prisoners, but if some kook has speific info on something, then I’m gonna leave that with the people on the ground, I’m not second guessing them. I do know waterboarding was successful in gathering info that helped prevent 3 attacks. At least that’s from the people who were there said.
I’m guessing Frank would cease the war on terror, cancel the Patriot Act, and close Git Mo, so my question is what would HE suggest we do to protect the USA?
I’d be interested in that also. Find one document where the Holy Father has said the war in Iraq is unjust and Catholic American soldiers need to cease. I’m not sure, but if the war is declared unjust a whole bunch of problems would have to be addressed.
As far as the Patriot Act, and torture, the Republicans do not support the wholesale torture of prisoners, but if some kook has speific info on something, then I’m gonna leave that with the people on the ground, I’m not second guessing them. I do know waterboarding was successful in gathering info that helped prevent 3 attacks. At least that’s from the people who were there said.
I’m guessing Frank would cease the war on terror, cancel the Patriot Act, and close Git Mo, so my question is what would HE suggest we do to protect the USA?
F
frankadams
Guest
I’m well aware that the Republicans “do not support the wholesale torture of prisoners.”
You have stated what you would do in the event of “some kook (having) specific info on something.” That is fine. I am simply stating that your position is at odds with the Holy Catholic Church. The Church’s issue is not a technique’s effectiveness. The Church’s issue is whether or not it violates human dignity. As torture violates human dignity, the Church has clearly stated it must never be used.
I will not put the burden upon the Church (or myself) as to enlighten countries as to how to conduct interrogations without using torture. They have simply stated what is morally impermissable.
F
frankadams
Guest
Pope John Paul II did not author a papal encyclical on the possibility of the war in Iraq. Nor did he say Catholic American soldiers “need to cease.”
However, I will wager my eternal soul (according to this thread, it is already likely gone for having voted for a few Democrats along the way) that if you spend two minutes on Google searching terms like "“Pope John Paul II” and “war” and “Iraq,” you will find the late Holy Father clearly speaking out against the war prior to its beginning, then regretting that it went forward once commenced. Dig a little deeper, and you will be able to find Vatican statements (from Vatican departments, not the Pope himself) against the war prior to its beginning.
In all sincerity, I assure you that the Church’s opposition to the war was and is no secret.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Had this conversation before, I’m not in favor of torturing people, but my human dignity is violated when some kook with a bomb to kill innocent Americans is allowed to carry out his plan because we refuse to be tough with one of his friends, that we know has info. Now maybe we get it, maybe we don’t, but one thing is for sure, we don’t have a chance serving him cupcakes. I know that case is extreme, but possible, and if it does happen, the Church also says I have the right to defend myself.
How would you protect us from these nuts? You won’t let anybody listen in on their phone calls, you don’t wanna hurt their feelings with tough questioning, you don’t wanna drop bombs on them in Iraq, you want to close Git Mo down, did I leave anything out?
Or do ya just wanna come home and hope they leave us alone, and take the reactive position instead of proactive?
If you say you wanna beef up Homeland Security, hey, I’m all for it.
F
frankadams
Guest
I agree that your human dignity is violated by people bombing you. I am simply reiterating that the Church condemns torture in all circumstances. Furthermore, torture does not meet the Church’s defintion of “self-defense.” I am not saying this is an easy teaching to abide by. I am not saying I can categorically state how I would proceed if I had the burden of making that sort of decision. I am just saying that regardless of the enemy’s violation of human dignity and the possible aid that torture might provide, the Church condemns it.
In order of your accusations…
- I will happily let the government listen to phone calls. The criticisms of the USCCB were about different provisions of the Patriot Act.
- “Tough questioning” could be fine. It is torture, that I, like the Church, am speaking out against.
- I didn’t want to drop bombs on Iraq for exactly the same reasons that the USCCB and the Vatican did not. The only exception was that they were much more accurate about the human suffering it would cause (I underestimated it). In regards to you connecting Iraq to terrorism, there was no meaningful terrorist threat from Iraq, no matter how often the administration tried to imply that there was.
- As Guantanamo Bay has become synonymous with toture and other egregious human and civil rights violations, not to mention part of the reason for our great country losing the vast international support we had following the start of the war in Afghanistan, not to mention that it has become the poster child for the terrorist recruitment efforts, yes, close it.
S
St_Aloysius
Guest
I sympathize with the OP here.
An interesting observation on my part: 98% of all abortions are performed as nothing more than means of birth control. Still, rape and incest (which only account for 1% of abortions in the U.S.) are the main cases made by pro-choicers for their position. Most of us can sympathize with these difficult situations even if not viewing abortion as a viable moral option. Nonetheless, if in fact this is true, we should be asking ourselves why so many feel themselves unready to face the responsibilities and difficulties accompanying parenthood if exempt from these tragic circumstances.
Many act simply out of self-interest–but not all. In many cases, these children would be faced with the most grievous circumstances and so many parents, wrongly yes, see what they are doing as a mercy-act.
Perhaps as of now the only thing we can practically be doing is reforming laws in regards to those 98%–making tighter stipulations for that group. But, ultimately, abortion cannot be eradicated until society as a whole sees a serious change. Small steps towards a big goal.
An interesting observation on my part: 98% of all abortions are performed as nothing more than means of birth control. Still, rape and incest (which only account for 1% of abortions in the U.S.) are the main cases made by pro-choicers for their position. Most of us can sympathize with these difficult situations even if not viewing abortion as a viable moral option. Nonetheless, if in fact this is true, we should be asking ourselves why so many feel themselves unready to face the responsibilities and difficulties accompanying parenthood if exempt from these tragic circumstances.
Many act simply out of self-interest–but not all. In many cases, these children would be faced with the most grievous circumstances and so many parents, wrongly yes, see what they are doing as a mercy-act.
Perhaps as of now the only thing we can practically be doing is reforming laws in regards to those 98%–making tighter stipulations for that group. But, ultimately, abortion cannot be eradicated until society as a whole sees a serious change. Small steps towards a big goal.
Y
YADA
Guest
DL82 wrote
In fact there are specifically people wo are Pro-Abortion, people who believe that an aborted baby is the best baby …
Look at the rational … better than being* unwanted* or growing up in poverty you wrote …
Well … unwanted by whom? … just the mother? … what about society? What if Jonas Salk’s mother had not wanted him … would the world have still wanted the polio vacine? What of the father, the siblings yet to be born, the grandparents or the childless couple willing to adopt? …
Abe Lincoln was born in poverty and a host of others … Martin Luther King, Jr … George Washington Carver, Ghandi… not everyone is a Kennedy or a Roosevelt, Hilton or De Beers … many of the worlds finest people overame poverty and disadvantages to make our world a better place …
If no one is truly Pro-ABortion as you say here then why was March 10th 2008 the National Day of Appreciation of Abortion Providers ???
In fact there are specifically people wo are Pro-Abortion, people who believe that an aborted baby is the best baby …
Look at the rational … better than being* unwanted* or growing up in poverty you wrote …
Well … unwanted by whom? … just the mother? … what about society? What if Jonas Salk’s mother had not wanted him … would the world have still wanted the polio vacine? What of the father, the siblings yet to be born, the grandparents or the childless couple willing to adopt? …
Abe Lincoln was born in poverty and a host of others … Martin Luther King, Jr … George Washington Carver, Ghandi… not everyone is a Kennedy or a Roosevelt, Hilton or De Beers … many of the worlds finest people overame poverty and disadvantages to make our world a better place …
B
BamaRider
Guest
Frank says-
No need to debate how we got there, we are THERE. Our sworn enemy is on the ground in Iraq, now do you want to engage them or not?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I really think a good part of the liberals’ opposition to the war in Iraq is really opposition to George Bush, whom they hate with a white-hot hatred because they feel he “robbed” Al Gore of the presidency, thus them of power. Further, Bush is overtly Christian and religious. A lot of the secular left folks can’t stand that.
People tend to forget that Saddam Hussein invaded two countries during his reign; killed upwards of a million people, violated the terms of the cease fire in a war he lost and fired at American planes regularly over the “no fly zone” which was a term of the ceasefire agreement. He was a practitioner of the use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people and on Iranians. He attempted to assassinate a former American President. Had it been Jimmy Carter, how the Dems would have howled for blood!
And I remember the Secretary of State of that very same Jimmy Carter promising to go to war with the Soviet Union over Iranian oil.
And today, we don’t even buy Iranian oil, yet the Dem President was ready to let the missiles fly because of it. And George Bush is a reckless warmonger?
One of the Dem candidates voted for the Iraq war resolution, voted over and again to continue funding it and was part of an administration that indiscriminately bombed Serbian civilians from 30,000 feet and destroyed their infrastructure deliberately, risking war with Russia in the process. Bombed the Chinese embassy too, the bombing was so indiscriminate. And yes, our forces are still there. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between that candidate and John McCain when it comes to war, except that the Dem is probably more warlike and less careful.
Oh yes, and I remember when the last Dem President promised to go to war if Serbian military set foot in Macedonia; which was seceding, and in which a lot of Serbs lived. The Serbs were a bloodthirsty and rough lot. No doubt about it. But they sure didn’t kill a million people and invade any neighboring countries. But, by golly, we were going to go to war if they set foot in Macedonia. Well, and we did go to war when Serbia tried to exile Albanians to…Albania. I’m not saying they were right in doing it. They weren’t. But it was a far cry from gassing Iranian and Iraqi kids in the hundreds of thousands and wantonly murdering and kidnapping Kuwaitis, a great number of whom have never been found.
And of course the Pope opposes war. I dont think any Pope after Pius IX formally endorsed any war, and it was thrust on him. But neither JPII nor Pope Benedict has ever said the U.S. presence (or that of the other many countries with troops there) in Iraq is unjust or immoral. No matter how one tries to read things into his statements, that judgment is not in them.
Dems are free to hate Bush, and they’re free to vote for the one Dem presidential candidate who perhaps really would pull the troops out of Iraq. (The other would invade Pakistan, which is a different place than Iraq. A nuclear state, but still not Iraq.) But to pretend that the Pope has somehow joined in condemnation of the U.S. (or British, or Polish, or, or, or)role in this particular war is simply a wrongful use of the Pope in a political campaign.
People tend to forget that Saddam Hussein invaded two countries during his reign; killed upwards of a million people, violated the terms of the cease fire in a war he lost and fired at American planes regularly over the “no fly zone” which was a term of the ceasefire agreement. He was a practitioner of the use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people and on Iranians. He attempted to assassinate a former American President. Had it been Jimmy Carter, how the Dems would have howled for blood!
And I remember the Secretary of State of that very same Jimmy Carter promising to go to war with the Soviet Union over Iranian oil.
And today, we don’t even buy Iranian oil, yet the Dem President was ready to let the missiles fly because of it. And George Bush is a reckless warmonger?
One of the Dem candidates voted for the Iraq war resolution, voted over and again to continue funding it and was part of an administration that indiscriminately bombed Serbian civilians from 30,000 feet and destroyed their infrastructure deliberately, risking war with Russia in the process. Bombed the Chinese embassy too, the bombing was so indiscriminate. And yes, our forces are still there. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between that candidate and John McCain when it comes to war, except that the Dem is probably more warlike and less careful.
Oh yes, and I remember when the last Dem President promised to go to war if Serbian military set foot in Macedonia; which was seceding, and in which a lot of Serbs lived. The Serbs were a bloodthirsty and rough lot. No doubt about it. But they sure didn’t kill a million people and invade any neighboring countries. But, by golly, we were going to go to war if they set foot in Macedonia. Well, and we did go to war when Serbia tried to exile Albanians to…Albania. I’m not saying they were right in doing it. They weren’t. But it was a far cry from gassing Iranian and Iraqi kids in the hundreds of thousands and wantonly murdering and kidnapping Kuwaitis, a great number of whom have never been found.
And of course the Pope opposes war. I dont think any Pope after Pius IX formally endorsed any war, and it was thrust on him. But neither JPII nor Pope Benedict has ever said the U.S. presence (or that of the other many countries with troops there) in Iraq is unjust or immoral. No matter how one tries to read things into his statements, that judgment is not in them.
Dems are free to hate Bush, and they’re free to vote for the one Dem presidential candidate who perhaps really would pull the troops out of Iraq. (The other would invade Pakistan, which is a different place than Iraq. A nuclear state, but still not Iraq.) But to pretend that the Pope has somehow joined in condemnation of the U.S. (or British, or Polish, or, or, or)role in this particular war is simply a wrongful use of the Pope in a political campaign.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Please stop using the word hate. I don’t hate Bush. I don’t hate anybody. And I now oppose Bush because of his involving us in Iraq so you have that backwards. And I don’t recall what words JPII used but he did warn the presdient strongly that it would make things worse by going in. When you consider that Christians at least had amnesty under Hussein whereas now they don’t he probably was right. Of course I am more willing to honor the foresight of the Pope than the President.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I say that because I challenged your claim that the Republican Platform contradicts Catholic teaching. When you run away from that and try to introduce other materials, you’re blowing smoke up my kilts.Vern, I have done many presentations on Catholic social justice teaching. I have given you three points on which to begin this exchange: The Patriot Act, torture, and the war in Iraq.
Let’s take the war: I have copied and distributed hundreds of copies of official documents of both the Vatican and the USCCB on the War in Iraq. If you were standing here, I would happily open up my desk and hand you one.
You have already asked me to go through the entire official Republican social platform, which I have agreed to do. It will be a long and exhausting task. But if I have to stop to find out, for example, which specific paragraph in the Catechism denounces torture, I will likely be unable to continue.
I thought I offered a fair compromise. I am open to another way to address your obligation, but I hope you would not consider my offer simply “blowing smoke up your kilts.”
Simply post the relevant parts of the Republican Platform, and the relevant Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to that platform.
You are trying to raise a smokescreen – for example, claiming the use of a technique to which we routinely subject men in training is “torture.”
So stop trying to blow smoke up my kilts and post the Republican Platform, and the opposing Catholic doctrine, or admit you’re wrong.
- Status