Can a person of faith serve in the military?

[Timothysis]

WWII was kinda just, until Hiroshima was bombed.

WWII was “kinda just?” What parts would you say were kinda unjust?

The bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to finally bring the war to an end. The Japanese had been at war since the 1933 invasion of Manchuria. Japan’s imperialistic designs brought death and ruination to millions of people throughout the Pacific realm. While it seems horrible today, we have to look at it through the lens of the times. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the Hiroshima bombing, yet we hardly hear anything about that. It isn’t easy or even fair to look at events from the past and apply modern standards to them.

The bombing, several years later, earned a condemnation from Pope Pious XII and caused the CCC to be re-written to include the use of WMD.

I have never read about a condemnation from Pope Puis XII and cannot find anything using google.

Also, the CCC was written until the 1980s.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think this has to be placed in its proper time frame to be relevant. This letter speaks *“that even though the process of inspections appears somewhat slow”

• which makes me believe that it was authored before Saddam kicked out the international weapon inspectors. The situation was certainly changed once that happened. Besides this letter never comes out and says that war against Iraq would be “unjust.”

An excellent point.

He made a similar statement during a meeting with Bush in '04. It is abundantly clear where the Holy Father (as an individual and as the Pope) and the Church stands in regards to the just or unjust nature of the Iraq War.

As to “Besides this letter never comes out and says that war against Iraq would be “unjust.”” You can’t have it both ways (in reference to your comment "It is only here on CAF that people are infatuated with having wars declared “just” or “unjust,” much in the same way that they ask, every time the pope makes a statement, if what he did or said is “infallible.” " You can either argue a war has to be declared to be just or unjust, or you can argue that we can infer such from official statements by the Church and the context in which they are given. You can’t argue both.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

WWII was “kinda just?” What parts would you say were kinda unjust?

The bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to finally bring the war to an end. The Japanese had been at war since the 1933 invasion of Manchuria. Japan’s imperialistic designs brought death and ruination to millions of people throughout the Pacific realm. While it seems horrible today, we have to look at it through the lens of the times. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the Hiroshima bombing, yet we hardly hear anything about that. It isn’t easy or even fair to look at events from the past and apply modern standards to them.

I have never read about a condemnation from Pope Puis XII and cannot find anything using google.

Also, the CCC was written until the 1980s.

Google “pope pius bombing hiroshima”

 

[IbnFiktur]

I don’t believe there ever was or ever will be a war that fits comfortably into the “just war” category. War is an act of policy. Politics is rarely, if ever, black and white. It is fundamentally tied to national interest.

In spite of this, the Church has instituted the Archdiocese of the Military in the US. Perhaps this is a concession that wars will happen and servicemen will desperately need ministry. Perhaps this is an acknowledgment of the right of a nation to act (within reasonable boundaries) in its national interest. Perhaps it’s a means of the Church raising itself above worldly politics and simply tending to the souls doing the fighting.

Whatever the creation of the ArchMil means, war is an incredibly complicated phenomenon. Soldiers and Marines are faced with a myriad of ethical decisions that must be made in a split second. On the modern battlefield, an incredible burden of moral responsibility is places on the shoulders of 19 and 20 year old kids. Many come back emotionally and spiritually wounded.

What I’m getting at here is that regardless of whether a war is “just” or not (this matter will be debated forever), no one needs the ministry of the Church more than servicemen.

As a Marine, I can understand why some Catholics would hesitate to join the military. It is important to remember, however, that the organization is only as good as the people in it. Wars will be carried out more justly if our officers and men have a strong sense of justice.

 

[R1ch4rd]

WWII was “kinda just?” What parts would you say were kinda unjust?

The bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to finally bring the war to an end. The Japanese had been at war since the 1933 invasion of Manchuria. Japan’s imperialistic designs brought death and ruination to millions of people throughout the Pacific realm. While it seems horrible today, we have to look at it through the lens of the times. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the Hiroshima bombing, yet we hardly hear anything about that. It isn’t easy or even fair to look at events from the past and apply modern standards to them.
I have never read about a condemnation from Pope Puis XII and cannot find anything using google.

Also, the CCC was written until the 1980s.

Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”

The Catechism was populated by JPII but the rules of a just war were around before 1980

I’m not condemning Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden or Tokyo. IMO it was necessary because the Japanese had planned on the allies bringing a ground war to their shores and that would have resulted in many more lives on both sides. Because of my opinion, I hesitate labeling WWII unjust but it did not meet all 4 criteria for a just war…so I called it kinda just

BTW, I don’t want to start anything on Hiroshima, enough has been posted on previuos threads.

 

[epan]

The Catechism was populated by JPII but the rules of a just war were around before 1980

I’m not condemning Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden or Tokyo. IMO it was necessary because the Japanese had planned on the allies bringing a ground war to their shores and that would have resulted in many more lives on both sides. Because of my opinion, I hesitate labeling WWII unjust but it did not meet all 4 criteria for a just war…so I called it kinda just

BTW, I don’t want to start anything on Hiroshima, enough has been posted on previuos threads.

Well, there are some separate issues being raised here.

One is the justness of a particular military action, in its objective. An objective may be just or unjust. I would suggest that stopping the Nazi’s was a just objective.

Within the parameters or achieving that objective, are strategy and tactics. Until WW2, attacking civilian targets was considered as “unjust”. But the idea of breaking the will of the enemy by attacking civilians entered into the vocabulary of acceptable strategy.

It should come as no surprise that terrorists have adopted this tactic. It has well established precedents. We just choose to forget that we engaged in the same tactics in Europe, Japan, Korea, and Viet Nam.

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes, there are ministers and priests in the military. They don’t pick up a weapon. My question refers to those who fight.

But this raises another question. Let’s assume that the US embarks on a clearly unjust war. Would a military priest be in moral danger by supporting the personnel who were fighting? One way to look at it would be to say that the priest is only ministering to individuals, but does he not also contribute to the moral and fighting efficiency of the people fighting?

Once your in the military I think your subjected to do what your told, is this true or not? Can someone join the US military and state as a condition they refuse to pick up a weapon and have that condition honored? Can one join the US military, agree to pick up a weapon for training but state they will not actively participate in firing of any weapons in a war and have that condition respected to the point where they are not put on the front lines? I registered for the draft when I was 18 as obligated. I am curious to know the anwers to my questions as they relate to this topic. I know that no one can ‘force’ you to fire a weapon, literally force you to pull the trigger of a gun your holding in your hands. But if someone is a doctor or a nurse and they join the military they don’t have the right to refuse to serve on the front lines where the enemy is actively firing into, can they?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[TimeEntrance]

In the USAF I was assigned to a strategic missile squadron. Those nuclear tipped ICBM’s provided a deterrent to war. There were some Catholics in my unit. One of them never failed to remind me to go to Mass on Sunday. I was somewhat insulated from the moral implications of nuclear weapons since my unit was involved only in testing, not in strategic operations. Still, the testing was necessary to ensure the reliability of the ICBM’s.

Sure I thought about the moral implications. Back then, the NCCB, the precursor to the USCCB, gave some consideration to the issue, and came out with a statement that the use of a nuclear deterrent was not inherently immoral, and so Catholics could serve in such units. Deterrence in itself is not an act of aggression or an act of war. And nuclear deterrence actually did keep the peace during the cold war over a period of many decades.

I thought of the issue again when there was a news item some years back in which a Catholic male missile crew officer objected to serving alone with a woman on 24 hr shifts in an isolated control center (these are two-person crews). His bishop supported him in his moral objections, but it’s noteworthy that neither the crew member nor his bishop raised any moral issue with the fact that he had the responsibility to launch nuclear missiles if necessary.

I think that’s because deterrence itself is not condemned. In fact, lack of a deterrent could make nuclear war more likely, and loss of innocent life more likely.

I also recall that another guy in my unit—in the electronics department—was a total pacifist. That is, when I would present him with hypothetical scenarios in which he might find it necessary to kill someone in self defense or defense of another, he always rejected such ideas. “You’re just trying to think of a way that I might have to kill someone,” he would say, “but I won’t.” Go figure.

I guarded Navy tactical nukes when I was in the Marine Corps.

The idea of deterrence comes from intellectuals involved in game theory. Personally, I’ve come to believe it is logically flawed. I agree with one historian that I heard on TV conclude that each day we don’t have nuclear war - so long as humanity has nuclear weapons - the closer we come (increased odds) to having nuclear war.

The United States has nuclear weapons for more than just deterrence. I think possibly the U.S. Government or Iran’s Government might be the two most likely to use tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. The U.S. considered using nukes in both Korea and Vietnam. Fortunately, sane minds prevailed.

The problem with the strategical nukes (ICBM’s) that the United States and Russia has is that is that both nations nuclear ICBM’s will reach their targets in Russia and the U.S. 30 minutes after launch. It’s presumed Russia has it’s ICBM’s targeted for every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 plus major ports and bodies of water. So, the Great Lake region in the Midwest is screwed.

Depending on the scale of the nuclear war the environmental impact could be globally apocalyptic. Large enough nuclear war with enough impact on mainland United States and the Amazon in South America will die off from a nuclear winter. The whole food chain will be catastrophically impacted.

Hopefully, humanity will find a reasonably way out if it’s current predicament with various nations owning nuclear weapons.

A number of years ago the world almost went to nuclear war. Actually, Russia claim close to ordering the launch of it’s nuclear ICBM’s on mainland United States. Almost no American citizen is aware of this. By act God the apocalypse was prevented. The test launch rocket the U.S. fired off - and gave previous notification to the Russian, due to Russian incompetence failed to spread across, and up the appropriate chains of command. When a nuclear station was alerted to the unidentified rocket fire by the U.S., alert was given to Kremlin. Kremlin put Russia on it’s highest nuclear alert and stood minutes away from giving the launch orders (literally) when for unknown reasons, the rocket veered off course (I credit it to God and/or an angel). At that point Kremlin contacted Washington.

This kind of follows what some U.S. WWII vet that became a military historian said on Book TV: That in his judgment nuclear war will come from a miscalculation or series of miscalculations.

 

[JimG]

My earlier post had only to do with strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical nukes.

I tend to agree with your general thesis. Tactical nukes, because they have a smaller yield, might be more prone to be used. And that’s a bad thing, because once a nuke of any size is used in a war, it makes the use of other nukes more likely.

So paradoxically, making smaller, low-yield, less deadly,nuclear weapons might have the effect of making nuclear war more likely than having huge strategic weapons which everyone would think twice about using. Even the yield of strategic ICBM warheads has gone down since the Cold War. The Minuteman I had a yield of just over 1 megaton, compared to the current MM-III with a 170 kiloton yield. Russia always had bigger warheads, in the 20 megaton range; I don’t know what they have currently.

Yes, as long as these weapons are in existence, there’s the chance they will be used. The SALT treaties have reduced the numbers on both sides. I would not think it wise, though, for the U.S. to entirely eliminate its strategic force as long as Russia and China and others have a strategic force. Nuclear blackmail is quite possible.

Yes, there have been some erroneous warnings on both sides. (Soviet Col Stanislov Petrov famously caught one of them which turned out to be a computer error.) But an all out first strike would be hard to misdiagnose, and no one is going to call a counterattack without being certain. Nuclear war could be started by miscalculation, although I think the most dangerous scenario would come from a smaller nuclear nation or a terrorist.

 

[JimG]

Back in the days of the Cold War, I always thought that both the U.S. and the USSR missed a good bet by not allowing each other to test their ICBM’s with real targets instead of just firing them down the test ranges. The U.S. was pretty good at hitting any designated spot in the Marshall Islands with a test warhead, but could they really hit a target in the USSR? Why not have each nation pick out a designated target area and see how close the other could come to hitting it?!

I’m afraid that idea got nowhere.

 

[Tietjen]

I am curious as to why you would question JP II’s authority to lend his moral opinion on the invasion of Iraq?

Actually, I don’t have any problem over Bl. JPII’s speaking his mind on the matter. However, I do not view his opinion as being fact (or binding) anymore than I view anyone elses opinion as being fact. That said, war is a terrible reality of the age we live in. There will always be those of differing opinions debating whether a war is “just” or “unjust.” Even the crusades are still debated as “just” vs “unjust.” Unfortunately, in the end, the history books will mostly encapsulate the opinions of those who don’t make policy and/or are not in a position to make a determination based on the facts at the time. Arm-chair historians have the luxury of time whereas those who make the decisions must choose to act quickly given the information at hand.

 

[epan]

Actually, I don’t have any problem over Bl. JPII’s speaking his mind on the matter. However, I do not view his opinion as being fact (or binding) anymore than I view anyone elses opinion as being fact. That said, war is a terrible reality of the age we live in. There will always be those of differing opinions debating whether a war is “just” or “unjust.” Even the crusades are still debated as “just” vs “unjust.” Unfortunately, in the end, the history books will mostly encapsulate the opinions of those who don’t make policy and/or are not in a position to make a determination based on the facts at the time. Arm-chair historians have the luxury of time whereas those who make the decisions must choose to act quickly given the information at hand.

In the case of going to war, I am not sure I agree with that assessment. The US had some years to get into WW2, until our hand was forced with the Pearl Harbor attack. Vietnam did not happen in a day, and was entirely elective. US interests were not at risk. There was absolutely no urgency whatsoever to go into Iraq for OIF. Indeed, that one was entirely an elective war, as are the current operations in Afghanistan. In both cases there was no threat to US security. Even with Korea, we had time to withdraw and return.

On the other hand, there have been urgent military operations, more often humanitarian and rescue efforts. Desert Storm comes to mind, as a recent example. But, even then, unlike his son, George H.W. Bush did not rush to war. He asked the Congress to vote after a recess, to give them time to think about their decision. On the other hand, his son tried to force the Congress to act without due deliberation. So, a sense of urgency which did not exist was created for OIF, which probably informs us more about the impulsive nature of G.W. Bush than anything, and which demonstrates how dangerous a rogue personality can be in a position of power (Gn. McArthur comes to mind).

 

[epan]

Once your in the military I think your subjected to do what your told, is this true or not? Can someone join the US military and state as a condition they refuse to pick up a weapon and have that condition honored? Can one join the US military, agree to pick up a weapon for training but state they will not actively participate in firing of any weapons in a war and have that condition respected to the point where they are not put on the front lines? I registered for the draft when I was 18 as obligated. I am curious to know the anwers to my questions as they relate to this topic. I know that no one can ‘force’ you to fire a weapon, literally force you to pull the trigger of a gun your holding in your hands. But if someone is a doctor or a nurse and they join the military they don’t have the right to refuse to serve on the front lines where the enemy is actively firing into, can they?

God Bless,
Bill

You may petition as a conscientous objector. If your petition is granted, then you do not have to fight. There are also some jobs where the likelihood of picking up a weapon is slim. For example, there are many jobs on a ship which are unlikely to ever be required to fire a weapon. There are also many Air Force jobs where one is unlikely to ever pick up a weapon, other than in training. You can request a specific job when you sign up, but there are no guarantees that even if you get that job, that you won’t be later assigned to another job.

Training and education has something to do with it too, though. It is unlikely that a priest or a physician or a nurse will ever be put into a front line combat position, though any of these people could find themselves on the front lines doing their job, which would not be firing a weapon, under “normal” circumstances.

If you join the Marine Corps, or are drafted into it, then your odds of engaging as a combatant go up. You will most likely be deployed at some point, but may not need to fire a weapon.

You are correct, that once you are in, you follow orders. Failure to do so can result in a charge of cowardice, in the worst case, which carries a capital penalty. There was one charge of cowardice brought during OIF. The case was an interpreter who suffered severe mental distress after seeing some particularly bloody action. He was sent home for psychiatric care. When he was cleared for duty again, he refused to return to Iraq. He was charged with cowardice. The charges were later dropped, and the antimalarial medicine he was taking was blamed for inducing his mental state. In other words, the press started to cover the case, and the Army needed and excuse to drop the charges.

 

[Tietjen]

In the case of going to war, I am not sure I agree with that assessment. The US had some years to get into WW2, until our hand was forced with the Pearl Harbor attack.

True, but prior to Pearl Harbor the US was content to sit out the war. IOW, it had decided not to join the war. Then, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US took only one day to declare war. The point being that the US government wasn’t sitting around from 1936 saying, “should we or shouldn’t we…” Its intention was to remain isolated. However, once provoked, it acted immediately. Since you bring up WWII, would you say that it was a “just war?” I ask that before you answer, you remember that the US did in fact cause the deaths of thousands of civilians. One of the big stumbling blocks for many who contemplate “the just war theory” is the possibility of killing innocents.

Vietnam did not happen in a day, and was entirely elective. US interests were not at risk.

I disagree. South Vietnam was an ally who was under threat of a communist insurgency. The Truman Doctrine was built on the assumption that not containing communism would result in world war III. (Remember one of the criteria used to determine a “Just” war is the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated). We can disagree all day long on whether or not communism throughout Vietnam would have been less evil than going to war but one only need look at the communist form of governing to realize the evils that it promulgates. As far as US interests are concerned, I am unsure whether the “Just” war theory (doctrine) is solely intended for the self interests of individual countries or whether it can be applied to allies who are unable to defend themselves. In other words, it seems rather uncharitable (not to mention unchristian) to believe that a country who can prevent a great evil from invading a weaker country should withhold aid for fear that it’s actions may cause it to be labeled “unjust.”

There was absolutely no urgency whatsoever to go into Iraq for OIF. Indeed, that one was entirely an elective war…

Indeed, it was “elective” only in that we had the choice to go in or continue to ignore the evil being done. However, IF “Just War doctrine” can be claimed by a larger nation to protect smaller nation(s) than I would have to again disagree with you. Saddam Hussein attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored members of the same terrorist organization that attacked our nation. Therefore, I believe that there was a Just Cause for our actions.

Further, I also believe that there was Just Intent for the actions taken by the US. I say that because I accept the belief that it was never our intent to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq. We used war as a last resort to remove a regime bent on doing evil (IE - defensive action). We had hoped and waited patiently for S.H. to abide by Security Council resolutions and treaties for over a decade. He violated virtually every one, proving that he had no intention of ceasing his evil ways. So, I doubt very seriously that it can be said that war was not used as a last resort.

… On the other hand, his son tried to force the Congress to act without due deliberation. So, a sense of urgency which did not exist was created for OIF, which probably informs us more about the impulsive nature of G.W. Bush than anything, and which demonstrates how dangerous a rogue personality can be in a position of power (Gn. McArthur comes to mind).

I’d suggest that the situations were too different to make an apples to apples comparison. The Sr. Bush did not have 9-11 to deal with. So, in my mind, the “sense of urgency” which you mentioned was not a factor for Bush Sr. With that said, G.W. Bush did not have to “force” the Congress to do anything. Like Pearl Harbor, America defended itself and justly so.

 

[R1ch4rd]

I think the arguments over just vs. unjust wars is in some respect similar to christian views on gun control. Some believe ALL guns should be destroyed and some will only give them up when they are pried from their cold, dead hand. The reality probably lies somewhere in the middle, even though one could be at either extreme and still be a good Catholic. I don’t wish to start anything,it’s just an analogy.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

So now back to your OP. Many, many devout Christians and Catholics have served their country in the last decade, whether the war was immediately labeled just or unjust, or whether that label came years after the war was over. The answer is yes.

 

[epan]

True, but prior to Pearl Harbor the US was content to sit out the war. IOW, it had decided not to join the war. Then, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US took only one day to declare war. The point being that the US government wasn’t sitting around from 1936 saying, “should we or shouldn’t we…” Its intention was to remain isolated. However, once provoked, it acted immediately. Since you bring up WWII, would you say that it was a “just war?” I ask that before you answer, you remember that the US did in fact cause the deaths of thousands of civilians. One of the big stumbling blocks for many who contemplate “the just war theory” is the possibility of killing innocents.

I disagree. South Vietnam was an ally who was under threat of a communist insurgency. The Truman Doctrine was built on the assumption that not containing communism would result in world war III. (Remember one of the criteria used to determine a “Just” war is the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated). We can disagree all day long on whether or not communism throughout Vietnam would have been less evil than going to war but one only need look at the communist form of governing to realize the evils that it promulgates. As far as US interests are concerned, I am unsure whether the “Just” war theory (doctrine) is solely intended for the self interests of individual countries or whether it can be applied to allies who are unable to defend themselves. In other words, it seems rather uncharitable (not to mention unchristian) to believe that a country who can prevent a great evil from invading a weaker country should withhold aid for fear that it’s actions may cause it to be labeled “unjust.”

Indeed, it was “elective” only in that we had the choice to go in or continue to ignore the evil being done. However, IF “Just War doctrine” can be claimed by a larger nation to protect smaller nation(s) than I would have to again disagree with you. Saddam Hussein attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored members of the same terrorist organization that attacked our nation. Therefore, I believe that there was a Just Cause for our actions.

Further, I also believe that there was Just Intent for the actions taken by the US. I say that because I accept the belief that it was never our intent to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq. We used war as a last resort to remove a regime bent on doing evil (IE - defensive action). We had hoped and waited patiently for S.H. to abide by Security Council resolutions and treaties for over a decade. He violated virtually every one, proving that he had no intention of ceasing his evil ways. So, I doubt very seriously that it can be said that war was not used as a last resort.

I’d suggest that the situations were too different to make an apples to apples comparison. The Sr. Bush did not have 9-11 to deal with. So, in my mind, the “sense of urgency” which you mentioned was not a factor for Bush Sr. With that said, G.W. Bush did not have to “force” the Congress to do anything. Like Pearl Harbor, America defended itself and justly so.

There was no more moral imperative to depose Saddam than any of the other tyrants in the world. Going into Iraq was entirely elective, just as going into North Korea tomorrow would be entirely elective. The threat was well contained at a modest cost, and posed no risk to US or world security.

 

[epan]

So now back to your OP. Many, many devout Christians and Catholics have served their country in the last decade, whether the war was immediately labeled just or unjust, or whether that label came years after the war was over. The answer is yes.

OK, so I am trying to understand the Catholic position. Is it that, a person who serves in the military is morally bound to serve as a combatant in any and all military actions that his or her government embarks upon? Is this a moral duty of Catholics to obey the legal authority of their government?

I am not talking about the obviously illegal atrocities which have occurred in history.

Was a German Catholic soldier morally obliged to serve during WW2 when called up, by Catholic teachings?

 

[R1ch4rd]

OK, so I am trying to understand the Catholic position. Is it that, a person who serves in the military is morally bound to serve as a combatant in any and all military actions that his or her government embarks upon? Is this a moral duty of Catholics to obey the legal authority of their government?

IMO, yes to this. If you signed on the dotted line in good conscience, you fight the war. If your conscience tells you otherwise, you don’t sign. Illegal atrocities are always illegal and always atrocious whether committed in war or not.

Was a German Catholic soldier morally obliged to serve during WW2 when called up, by Catholic teachings?

A German Catholic was probably obliged to serve because of the gun to his head, but this is a good question, and one that your probably better suited to answer based on your location.

This would be much like the draft in America. WWII was a no brainier, you fought. Vietnam wasn’t as cut and dried. Back when I was nineteen, if drafted, I would have gone. Looking back as a “mature” man, I’m not so sure. But thankfully I didn’t need to make that decision.

 

[Tietjen]

There was no more moral imperative to depose Saddam than any of the other tyrants in the world. Going into Iraq was entirely elective, just as going into North Korea tomorrow would be entirely elective. The threat was well contained at a modest cost, and posed no risk to US or world security.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I did enjoy the thread however. Peace.