G
gilliam
Guest
Lisa N:
William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb.
- Status
F
Funky_Cedars
Guest
do you have an example of him explicitly expressing this? it seems odd to me, esp. given his apparent Polish nationalism.
also, i understood him to be opposed to an attack on Iraq, not who was attacking Iraq. he wanted more work to be done on diplomatic lines of reslolution and wouldn’t have been satisfied simply if more nations were involved in the attact.
God bless us
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
liberal friend:
I am a smiley Queen do not take offense,I do that to everyone
T
Trelow
Guest
Lisa N:
I really don’t think you can pigeonhole every set of thoughts.
I just believe that we should do what is right according to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
I believe in a proactive international presence to ensure the basic human rights of the poor and opressed.
I believe that any government doesn’t have right to do for people what they can do for themselves.
I believe that every program has to be handled at the lowest possible level of government.
I believe that the government exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the government.
I believe that we should not have career poloticians.
I believe that the government should aknowledge a higher power.
But most imiportantly I believe the government does not have the authority to contridict the moral law.
Good point.
I really don’t think you can pigeonhole every set of thoughts.
I just believe that we should do what is right according to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
I believe in a proactive international presence to ensure the basic human rights of the poor and opressed.
I believe that any government doesn’t have right to do for people what they can do for themselves.
I believe that every program has to be handled at the lowest possible level of government.
I believe that the government exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the government.
I believe that we should not have career poloticians.
I believe that the government should aknowledge a higher power.
But most imiportantly I believe the government does not have the authority to contridict the moral law.
Yup and yup.
T
Trelow
Guest
Nah.
Hey, even saints don’t get everything right.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Nothing personal, but this is nonsense. The Pope gave his reasons for opposing the U.S. invasion, and this wasn’t one of them.
G
gilliam
Guest
Funky Cedars:
The Pope wasn’t alone in wanting a stronger UN. Bolton wants a stronger UN as well, and so does Bush. I think the difference was in just how much the UN will play in leading the world and establishing real international laws. I think the Pope was closer to making it the ‘moral and legal center’ for the entire world (see his 1995 speach where he calls out to the UN to be the moral authority for the world).
some information is here:
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZROMEUN.HTM
John Paul II returned to this theme in his Jan. 13, 1997, address to the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. “What the international community perhaps lacks most of all today is not written conventions or forums for self-expression — there is a profusion of these! — but a moral law and the courage to abide by it”
The community of nations, he continued, “must be regulated by a rule of law, valid for all of them without exception.” This law “has a strong moral implication,” he said. International law, moreover, should be founded on values such as the dignity of the person and the rights of nations. As such, international laws are thus moral principles before they become juridical norms.
In other words, a world government. And he saw it being headed by the UN.
By the way, historically, the moral and legal center for the world was Rome, not secularists at the UN. I guess we can give up any hope that will ever happen again, especially if Rome isn’t behind it.
Islam, by the way, hasn’t delegated their authority to the UN yet.
Yes, the Pope indicated that he would favor the liberation of Iraq if the UN approved it. He did not know that officials within the UN were being bribed by Saddam at the time.
The Pope wasn’t alone in wanting a stronger UN. Bolton wants a stronger UN as well, and so does Bush. I think the difference was in just how much the UN will play in leading the world and establishing real international laws. I think the Pope was closer to making it the ‘moral and legal center’ for the entire world (see his 1995 speach where he calls out to the UN to be the moral authority for the world).
some information is here:
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZROMEUN.HTM
John Paul II returned to this theme in his Jan. 13, 1997, address to the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See. “What the international community perhaps lacks most of all today is not written conventions or forums for self-expression — there is a profusion of these! — but a moral law and the courage to abide by it”
The community of nations, he continued, “must be regulated by a rule of law, valid for all of them without exception.” This law “has a strong moral implication,” he said. International law, moreover, should be founded on values such as the dignity of the person and the rights of nations. As such, international laws are thus moral principles before they become juridical norms.
In other words, a world government. And he saw it being headed by the UN.
By the way, historically, the moral and legal center for the world was Rome, not secularists at the UN. I guess we can give up any hope that will ever happen again, especially if Rome isn’t behind it.
Islam, by the way, hasn’t delegated their authority to the UN yet.
F
Funky_Cedars
Guest
imho, implicit in a comment about the 'community of nations’ is an opposition to a one world government. a nation is a self-governing entity. if there was one government for the entire world, there would not be multiple nations. we’d be ‘country-states’ at best.
also, if there was to be only a single govening body regulating the world, the phrase ‘without exception’ would be redundant.
me thinks JPIIs desire to have a binding morality for all nations does not equate to a desire for the UN to run the Vatican State.
Christ is Risen!
also, if there was to be only a single govening body regulating the world, the phrase ‘without exception’ would be redundant.
me thinks JPIIs desire to have a binding morality for all nations does not equate to a desire for the UN to run the Vatican State.
Christ is Risen!
G
gilliam
Guest
Funky Cedars:
Pretty much like you and I
What Vatican State? I’m sorry, that was given up generations ago. Now the Pope can see all his domain from his bedroom window.
Pretty much like you and I
L
liberal_friend
Guest
I’m curious how paleoliberals like Gilliam view the new Pope.
Of course an old time liberal (not a neo one like Gilliam) named President Wilson was much opposed to the last Pope named Benedict. Benedict refused to blame Germany for the war and to insist on its being punished to the economic benefit of the allies. Pope Benedict also did not seem to insist on an unconditional surrender or the removal of all the defeated countries leaders. Consequently, Pope Benedict XV was not even invited to the peace conference: as a man of peace, he did not get to divide the economic spoils of victory.
You new liberals (the cleverly self-described “neo-cons”) will probably insist that BXVI keep his nose out of America’s vision to forceably install democracy around the world. Just like Bush the Elder and the Younger told JPII to mind his own business as they bombed, invaded, and occupied countries in order to “free” them.
Thank goodness we invaded Iraq…or else there would be terrorists there now.
Gilliam, what will happen in your world of “might makes right” when the Muslims have more might? Or do you think letting them all vote will be enough to pacify them?
Oh by the way–when is our invasion of the African continent going to happen? They seem to have very few democracies.
Of course an old time liberal (not a neo one like Gilliam) named President Wilson was much opposed to the last Pope named Benedict. Benedict refused to blame Germany for the war and to insist on its being punished to the economic benefit of the allies. Pope Benedict also did not seem to insist on an unconditional surrender or the removal of all the defeated countries leaders. Consequently, Pope Benedict XV was not even invited to the peace conference: as a man of peace, he did not get to divide the economic spoils of victory.
You new liberals (the cleverly self-described “neo-cons”) will probably insist that BXVI keep his nose out of America’s vision to forceably install democracy around the world. Just like Bush the Elder and the Younger told JPII to mind his own business as they bombed, invaded, and occupied countries in order to “free” them.
Thank goodness we invaded Iraq…or else there would be terrorists there now.
Gilliam, what will happen in your world of “might makes right” when the Muslims have more might? Or do you think letting them all vote will be enough to pacify them?
Oh by the way–when is our invasion of the African continent going to happen? They seem to have very few democracies.
L
liberal_friend
Guest
Funky Cedars:
Paleoliberals like Gillam want a one-world “new order” as long as the US gets most of the economic benefit. Morality be damned. For the so-called neocons: money talks, and morality can walk. Religion must be private for them. How Protestant
The last time we had a one world government, God destroyed it. Tower of Babel anyone?
Paleoliberals like Gillam want a one-world “new order” as long as the US gets most of the economic benefit. Morality be damned. For the so-called neocons: money talks, and morality can walk. Religion must be private for them. How Protestant
A
aimee
Guest
liberal friend:
Are you a michael moore fan?The last time we had a one world government, God destroyed it. Tower of Babel anyone?
Paleoliberals like Gillam want a one-world “new order” as long as the US gets most of the economic benefit. Morality be damned. For the so-called neocons: money talks, and morality can walk. Religion must be private for them. How Protestant
A
aimee
Guest
liberal friend:
Are you for realI’m curious how paleoliberals like Gilliam view the new Pope.
Of course an old time liberal (not a neo one like Gilliam) named President Wilson was much opposed to the last Pope named Benedict. Benedict refused to blame Germany for the war and to insist on its being punished to the economic benefit of the allies. Pope Benedict also did not seem to insist on an unconditional surrender or the removal of all the defeated countries leaders. Consequently, Pope Benedict XV was not even invited to the peace conference: as a man of peace, he did not get to divide the economic spoils of victory.
You new liberals (the cleverly self-described “neo-cons”) will probably insist that BXVI keep his nose out of America’s vision to forceably install democracy around the world. Just like Bush the Elder and the Younger told JPII to mind his own business as they bombed, invaded, and occupied countries in order to “free” them.
Thank goodness we invaded Iraq…or else there would be terrorists there now.
Gilliam, what will happen in your world of “might makes right” when the Muslims have more might? Or do you think letting them all vote will be enough to pacify them?
Oh by the way–when is our invasion of the African continent going to happen? They seem to have very few democracies.
G
geezerbob
Guest
I don’t know if he’s for real or not. What I do know is that if he doesn’t stop the name calling and personal attacks, he will be reported and probably suspended.Are you for real
T
Trelow
Guest
liberal friend:
:whacky:
:ehh:The last time we had a one world government, God destroyed it. Tower of Babel anyone?
Paleoliberals like Gillam want a one-world “new order” as long as the US gets most of the economic benefit. Morality be damned. For the so-called neocons: money talks, and morality can walk. Religion must be private for them. How Protestant
:whacky:
G
gilliam
Guest
liberal friend:
These positions are not that different from the Vatican’s by the way except the Vatican talks mostly about religious freedom and not a lot about political and economic freedom. I feel all three are extremely important to universal stability in this world.
I have never said the US should get the larger share of any economic gain.
I am not in favor of a one world government. What I am in favor of is that all nations are ‘connected’ to each other both economically and by treaty. Because the connected ones don’t invade each other. It is the disconnected countries that do that. Read .The Pentagon’s New Map I am also in favor of spreading freedom (all Catholics should be in favor of that, after all it is a God given right, it is part of Natural Law). So morals are very important.
These positions are not that different from the Vatican’s by the way except the Vatican talks mostly about religious freedom and not a lot about political and economic freedom. I feel all three are extremely important to universal stability in this world.
I have never said the US should get the larger share of any economic gain.
A
aimee
Guest
Excellent post
- Status