As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[duple1]

In the ancient bible, were there not wars where God Himself sided with one group against another?
Larry

 

[GKC]

Based on private message interaction I’ve had with Ghosty, your remarks are off the mark more so than Sweeney’s drop on Nagasaki. Further, they’re off-topic and ad hominem.

Why not attack me? In part, I’ve given subjective commentary, delved into emotional reasoning as to why dissenters are not seeing my point of view, I’ve blatantly discounted opinions on the issue of high-ranking Catholics including Popes (though I admit I did give my reasoning why, which had nothing to do with their abilities and what they knew, but what they didn’t know), etc.

The only one in this thread that has presented nothing but truly objective historical data, and the objective view of what were certainly subjective opinions of the men who made the decision, has been GKC.

Don’t go overboard, boatswain.

Scouts out,
Jon

I appreciate your comment; that’s my intent, in posting. Whether I always achieve it is open to question, I suppose.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Larry,

I think the Old Testament gives examples where God publicly supported the Hebrews in battles. Here are two good examples: Joshua 4:13 and 1Samuel 15:3 The first reference is especially to the point - what was left was essentially total devastation with no one left alive.

But, I am not aware of God having taken a public position on which side He was supporting in WW II. Do you have some information on this?

God bless

In the ancient bible, were there not wars where God Himself sided with one group against another?
Larry

 

[oldbrit2009]

Gosty,

“Perhaps you should study more about moral culpability before you say these things.”

I really think you should read a posters profile before you make patronising remarks like that.

 

[Ghosty]

Gosty,

“Perhaps you should study more about moral culpability before you say these things.”

I really think you should read a posters profile before you make patronising remarks like that.

A poster’s profile isn’t going to change what they’ve written in their posts. When someone accuses me of something without showing an understanding of the matter at hand I can only assume malice or ignorance; I prefer to assume ignorance rather than accuse someone of malice. Perhaps my approach seems patronizing, but I’m not intending to be.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

Perhaps you should study more about moral culpability before you say these things.

Full culpability demands full knowledge and full consent.
Partial requires some combination thereof.

They knew how big the explosion would be, they had already tested it.
According to your own responses, they chose the city for its population as well as the possibility for an amplified effect given the surrounding topography.
They had many other locations in which the drop could have happened, for that matter it could not have happened at all.
The command had full control of the situation.

You provided us with their full knowledge, their rank provides for the consent, the target (according to you) provides for the evil act.

I know well what culpability means.
I find it telling that you are shrinking away from it.

The logical conclusion of the argument you have so well made is that the men responsible for the bomb drop were monsters.

If you do not have the courage of conviction in what your argument says, then I must conclude that there is something in your argument that you know is flawed.

I could not find it at first, so I ceased my argument. Truth be told, I still cannot.
But I do recognize when someone knows their argument is flawed, and your actions tell me your argument is flawed.

 

[vz71]

A poster’s profile isn’t going to change what they’ve written in their posts.

Please indicate the accusation.

 

[vz71]

A poster’s profile isn’t going to change what they’ve written in their posts. When someone accuses me of something…

Please indicate the accusation.

 

[Ghosty]

Please indicate the accusation.

You accused me, twice now, of shrinking away from a logical conclusion. I’ve pointed out that full knowledge of the moral gravity of the action is needed for culpability. I’m not in the position to know how well informed these people were about moral gravity; I don’t know their religions nor upbringings, and I don’t know how much consideration was given to moral issues.

Without that kind of knowledge I can’t very well judge the state of their souls, something I’m not prone to doing even in the best of circumstances. All I can say is that they did target non-combatants, and that I think they likely knew on some level that such an action was problematic. Likely isn’t certainty, however, and I’m not on any tribunal that judges the state of others’ souls. I have said unequivocally that targeting non-combatants is a moral evil, and that’s as far as I can go.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Ghosty - first, my apologies for the he/she mixup…I assumed (yeah, yeah, I know…) the picture was you.

I’m glad you care for veterans, but that does not mean you understand their sacrifices. There is a big difference between the life and death decisions in medicine and the “who will you decide will be most likely to die” decisions in the military.

If you have ever studied formal decision making theorums then you would be familiar with the good/good, good/bad, and bad/bad scenarios. It’s easy to make the good/bad decisions (you choose the good). It is sometimes more difficult to make the good/good decisions, but once you understand that both answers will be good then you relax and just try to figure out which one will be the “best” good.

But the truly difficult decisions are the bad/bad decisions…and this is where you have likely never really ventured. Have you ever had to decide between two people living or dieing? It is easy to sit back in your armchair and say “Well I choose for them BOTH to live”, but sometimes life isn’t always as simple as you wish it to be.

And THAT is the sacrifice which, while you may care for a Pearl survivor, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend. There are men (and women) in the Armed Forces who live in those grey areas. They are FORCED to make decisions about who lives and who dies. They have to live with those decisions, and with the guilt of second guessing their decisions every day.

And it can be a real kick in the teeth when someone like you, who has no clue what it is like to make those kind of sacrifices yet you benefit from their blood/sweat/tears, come around and tell them they have made immoral decisions.

I suggest you read some biographies of wartime leaders to gain a better appreciation of their emotional and spiritual sacrifices they have made so that you and your family can sleep peacefully at night.

 

[Ghosty]

This is precisely why I judge the action and not the person’s guilt. I don’t know how they came to the decisions they made.

None of that changes the fact that intentionaly killing a non-combatant is always an evil action. We’re not talking about misidentification in the heat of battle, nor getting caught up in the moment. We’re talking about deliberate killing of non-combatants for an end. Reminding people that it’s wrong is precisely for the purpose of making sure the good men and women who go to war don’t come back with more of a burden than they already do. No one should ever have to sacrifice their soul for another’s worldly comfort. It is wrong to ask, or order, soldiers to do that.

We’re not talking about just deciding who lives and who dies, nor about killing an enemy to save a friend. We’re talking about a very specific type of targeting. Even so I won’t spit in the face of someone who made an evil choice in a tough situation, but I also won’t call evil good in order to assuage anyone’s conscience. We have Confession for a reason, and that is to identify our errors, confront them with Grace, and grow from the experience. If we stop calling evil evil just because it makes people feel bad then we’ve lost all sense of examining the conscience, and we should not condemn any evil action because all of them can be committed with good intention or imperfect knowledge.

Only by confronting our evil choices can we seek absolution and peace, and we can’t have that peace if we ignore the gravity of our choices. I’m speaking generally here, not just about bombings. Our soldiers carry enough of a burden already, I won’t deny the peace of absolution to them if that’s what they need, and absolution comes through confronting our decisions, not ignoring them. The most I can do is advocate for an informed conscience.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

You accused me, twice now, of shrinking away from a logical conclusion. I’ve pointed out that full knowledge of the moral gravity of the action is needed for culpability.

Perhaps you should read up a little on culpability before making such a statement.
Culpability is not the binary that you are treating it as.

As to the shrinking away from the logical conclusion, I believe you are.

You have shown (at least to my satisfaction) that the people responsible for the dropping of these two bombs knew the effects beforehand and specifically chose the targets based the horror that it would create.
They also have been shown to be solely responsible for the drops as they could easily have chosen no target, or a less inhabited target, or even a non-inhabited target.
And they could have even chosen to not drop the devices in the first place.

This decision making process is monsterous.

However, as you have correctly pointed out, they may not have known it was wrong.
But you end up hinging the entirety of their monstrous actions upon the idea that it is conceivable that they simply did not believe murder on a scale never before seen before was not immoral.

The suspension of disbelief it requires for me to accept this is simply too great.
You cannot take innocent lives on that scale and think it morally correct…or even think it morally nuetral.

God’s law is written on the heart of man.
Murder is morally incorrect, and the taking of one innocent life is well known to be immoral.

You wish me to believe that it is possible someone did not realize taking thousands of innocent lives was not immoral.

You presented your argument well.
It logically leads us to know that the Allied commanders responsible for the bombs were monsters.

And I am still wondering why you keep shying away from it.
Have the courage of conviction to stand by your argument.

 

[Ghosty]

vz71: I’ve never said that culpability is binary, I’ve just said that I don’t have enough information to determine their culpability and that I’m not prone to doing so at any rate. Perhaps they didn’t think what they were doing was murder. If you’re so certain of their mental states and moral compasses then go ahead and judge them.

Personally I don’t see the benefit of judging people we didn’t know and who are long dead. We can learn from their example, but we can’t very well admonish them now, can we? My concern, as I’ve stated, is for those who will be faced with this kind of choice in the future, not because it was ok then but wrong now, but because outrage won’t change the past, and certainly won’t change their guilt or innocence.

I recommend just praying for them, which should be done regardless.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

None of that changes the fact that intentionaly killing a non-combatant is always an evil action. We’re not talking about misidentification in the heat of battle, nor getting caught up in the moment. We’re talking about deliberate killing of non-combatants for an end.

I’m not in the position to know how well informed these people were about moral gravity; I don’t know their religions nor upbringings, and I don’t know how much consideration was given to moral issues.

Without that kind of knowledge I can’t very well judge the state of their souls, something I’m not prone to doing even in the best of circumstances.

Look at the above from your own posts.
On the one hand, you provide all of the information necessary to judge these people monsters.
Then you turn around and claim to be unable to judge.

What exactly is it inside your own argument that has you unconvinced?

 

[Ghosty]

Look at the above from your own posts.
On the one hand, you provide all of the information necessary to judge these people monsters.
Then you turn around and claim to be unable to judge.

What exactly is it inside your own argument that has you unconvinced?

We need to know their mental state and their moral understanding in order to judge them. I know neither of these things.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

We need to know their mental state and their moral understanding in order to judge them. I know neither of these things.

Peace and God bless!

Do you pass this same upon Hitler?
Ho Chi Minh?
kim Sung Il?
Pol Pot?
Lenin?
Stalin?
Mao Tse Tung?

Perhaps Tiller?Ho Chi Minh

 

[Ghosty]

Do you pass this same upon Hitler?
Ho Chi Minh?
kim Sung Il?
Pol Pot?
Lenin?
Stalin?
Mao Tse Tung?

Perhaps Tiller?Ho Chi Minh

Yep on all counts. Tiller is more contemporary and I would have challenged him, espescially since he was a professed Christian, but I don’t know his case very well beyond the headlines.

I’m just not in the business of judging souls. I’d rather just pray for them, and ask them to pray for me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

Yep on all counts. Tiller is more contemporary and I would have challenged him, espescially since he was a professed Christian, but I don’t know his case very well beyond the headlines.

And you are perfectly comfortable lumping in the Allied commanders with these people?

 

[Ghosty]

And you are perfectly comfortable lumping in the Allied commanders with these people?

I lump everyone whom I don’t know the eternal fate of in this same category, including my own family. There is no special category of souls that we shouldn’t pray for.

I accept the fact that it’s entirely possible that I will spend eternity in Hell while Pol Pot enjoys the Beatific Vision.

Peace and God bless!

 

[vz71]

I lump everyone whom I don’t know the eternal fate of in this same category, including my own family. There is no special category of souls that we shouldn’t pray for.

You are avoiding the question.

Perhaps I should be more specific…but I suspect you well know what I am asking.

And like your shying away from the logical conclusion of your argument, it leads me to believe you know your own argument to be in error.