M
MikeWM
Guest
Many people nowadays don’t know, or don’t profess to know, the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. They are not the same thing.
Mike
- Status
Mike
A
aimee
Guest
a word by any other name
you say potato… I say pomme de terre
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, no. There are many Jews who aren’t Zionists for example, but you can’t call them anti-semitic. Again, they are not the same thing.a word by any other name
Mike
G
gilliam
Guest
As far as I know she said that Israel should get out of Palestine. Since Palestine consists of all the land in the current state of Israel, that would mean she wants Israel to cease to exist. Personally, I don’t think she thought it through when she said it, although she has been going to a lot of pro-Palestinian rallies.
Is it anti-Semetic, no, not in and of itself. As you said, it is anti-Zionistic.
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Drudge has some new items on Sheehan, some have been mentioned in above posts…
**(Cindy Sheehan: ) “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!” **
**(…)"Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.” **
**“They’re a bunch of”(…) “hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration. **
**“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his” (…) “, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”
“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.” **
Warning about the following link, there are vulgarities that are attributed to Cindy Sheehan (I edited them out), so if you want to avoid reading vulgar attacks against President Bush, read only the text above, not the link.
drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
I hope none of that is true. However, it does go along with her other statements. She seriously needs our prayers. And the way the MSM is treating her like a martyr for the antiwar cause, it cannot help her rehabilitation in any way. They are no doing her any favors by ignoring her sickly spirit. Cindy responded to the death of her son and her suffering by hating.
**(Cindy Sheehan: ) “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!” **
**(…)"Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.” **
**“They’re a bunch of”(…) “hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration. **
**“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his” (…) “, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”
“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.” **
Warning about the following link, there are vulgarities that are attributed to Cindy Sheehan (I edited them out), so if you want to avoid reading vulgar attacks against President Bush, read only the text above, not the link.
drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
I hope none of that is true. However, it does go along with her other statements. She seriously needs our prayers. And the way the MSM is treating her like a martyr for the antiwar cause, it cannot help her rehabilitation in any way. They are no doing her any favors by ignoring her sickly spirit. Cindy responded to the death of her son and her suffering by hating.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Steve O'Brien:
Steve O'Brien:
Steve O'Brien:
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
On Catholic Answers website they elaborate on this teaching:
***Finally, the Catechism identifies those who have the burden of evaluating the conditions for whether a particular war is just: “those who have responsibility for the common good.” In modern nation-states, this means the government.
Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision.
There may not be a guarantee that the government will do so, but, except in the case of fundamentally evil regimes, it is more likely that the government would arrive at an appropriate course of action than would the general public.***
The Pope may have been against this war, but it was most certainly his opinion, since according to the Magisterium, the responsibility of deciding if the war was just or not is up to our government.
I honestly struggle with this, but in my mind, I have trouble calling this “an unjust war”.
I don’t see where the term “imminent” is used in the Catechism. We found and confiscated yellow cake uranium in Iraq after we invaded. At the time of the invasion we thought they had WMDs, although after the fact it was determined they did not. What is important though when discussing the morality of the decision is that at the time there was a lot of information pointing to Iraq having WMDs…couple that with Saddam’s repeated violations of UN Sanctions, and his continual efforts to prevent inspections, I can’t say that the first condition was violated. Also considering that there are over 500,000 bodies in mass graves in Iraq, I would say that the actual damage and the potential damage was lasting, grave, and at the time, certain.
Steve O'Brien:
Again, this is a debateable point. Did we invade Iraq? Yes. Did Iraq start everything when they invaded Kuwait, and then did not live up to the terms of surrender. YES!!!
Steve O'Brien:
I have studied the catechism’s discussion on the war, and noticed you left out a very critical piece of information:
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
On Catholic Answers website they elaborate on this teaching:
***Finally, the Catechism identifies those who have the burden of evaluating the conditions for whether a particular war is just: “those who have responsibility for the common good.” In modern nation-states, this means the government.
Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision.
There may not be a guarantee that the government will do so, but, except in the case of fundamentally evil regimes, it is more likely that the government would arrive at an appropriate course of action than would the general public.***
The Pope may have been against this war, but it was most certainly his opinion, since according to the Magisterium, the responsibility of deciding if the war was just or not is up to our government.
I honestly struggle with this, but in my mind, I have trouble calling this “an unjust war”.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I know it does, but I’m still not convinced this part of the cathechism makes sense if you interpret it narrowly to mean ‘the Government’. Most governments aren’t Catholic, so why would they make the evaluation based on Catholic Just War theory? The implication being that if the government isn’t Catholic, a war can’t be called just or unjust. Surely someone has to do an evaluation?
Mike
S
shockerfan
Guest
Good question. But also consider the analysis done by CatholicAnswers…
Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision
There is a certain amount of trust required. From what I have seen, those that like Bush trust him, and those that do not like Bush, don’t trust him. Thus that seems to be the basis for their opinions about the war.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Yes, but Bush isn’t a Catholic, the US govt. aren’t Catholic. He/they won’t have made his/their decisions based on Catholic Just War theory. So, I wonder again : who is to make the decision as to whether a war is a Just War or not? Surely someone has to?
Mike
S
shockerfan
Guest
In the end only God can say if a war was just or unjust.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Well, yes. But we have to know whether to support a war or not. We apparently can’t evaluate this ourselves because we’re lacking in knowledge. But we can’t use the government’s evaluation, because the government isn’t Catholic.
Hence why I don’t see you can interpret this part of the Catechism to mean just ‘the government’.
Mike
S
SusanL
Guest
I don’t think that the govt has to be Catholic for it to make the right decisions. The decision is supposed to be for the common good. you don’t have to be Catholic to do that.
The Catechism doesn’t stipulate that those who have responsibility for the common good have to be anything. Just that their decision has to be for the common good.
I agree with Shockerfan that people decide more on the basis of who to trust. People who don’t like Bush will not like his decisions on Iraq. Those who do like Bush will trust his decisions.
I like, admire and respect George W. Bush. And I pray for him, too.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
It sounds like we need a clearer, more definitive explanation from the Vatican of this aspect of just war theory.
The formulation *evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good, *as stated in the catechism, seems too open to misinterpretation. I do not think it means, as some here have argued, that because the government decides to go to war, the action must therefore be just (because of the presumption that the government will always act in the best interests of the common good). That’s way too convenient. Any government can take any action and find a way to justify it.
I take it to mean that government officials have an obligation to evaluate the moral implications of going to war in in light of Catholic just war theory. If the conditions are met, the war is just; if not, it is not. As the *Catholic Answers *explanation correctly states, we citizens don’t have all the information the government has; therefore the onus is on them (the government)
to act rightly.
G
gilliam
Guest
There is nothing in the Catechism that says the civil authorities need to be Catholic.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I think so too.
too open to misinterpretation. I do not think it means, as some here have argued, that because the government decides to go to war, the action must therefore be just (because of the presumption that the government will always act in the best interests of the common good). That’s way too convenient. Any government can take any action and find a way to justify it.
Yes, but most governments aren’t Catholic, so I doubt they try to work out whether an action fits Catholic just war theory or not. Are we supposed to assume they have done so and so any war they go into is just - this obviously doesn’t work. But what’s the alternative? Who judges if we don’t think the government has applied Catholic just war doctrine, or don’t tell us whether they have or not?
Deciding if a war is just or not seems a complex enough concept anyway, and this just seems to be complicating the issue further
Mike
M
MikeWM
Guest
Exactly my point. Non-Catholic civil authorities aren’t going to use Just Wat theory as part of their determination as to whether to go to war or not. So then who is allowed to determine if the war is just or not?
Mike
G
gilliam
Guest
The Catechism is clear, the civil authorities, whether they are Catholic or not. It is their immortal souls that are at stake. There is an understanding in the Catechism that moral law is universal.
M
MikeWM
Guest
Don’t we have to determine whether the war is just or not though, in order to work out if it is right to fight in it or not? Surely a presumption of it being just because the government has risked their souls over it, isn’t enough? (We know ‘I was only following orders’ isn’t sufficient).
Mike
G
gilliam
Guest
The ‘I was only following orders’ has to do with individual war crimes or crimes against humanity. Soldiers are expected to follow orders in the Just War tradition. We are not privy to all the top secret info, so how can we know all the facts? That is why it is left to the civil authorities (and also why they are responsible).
Are we off topic for this thread?
B
Bella3502
Guest
Wow, what an incredibly rude thing to say of her or to anyone who has lost a child that way.
Shameful… just shameful.
- Status