If It's Good For One, Then Why Not The Other?

[aimee]

Elizabeth B.:

Do you not understand that your use of inflamatory language, innuendos, comparisons…totally discounts any opportunity for a reasonable discussion?

They don’t seem to understand…and I don’t think they want to discuss …Doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

aimee:

They don’t seem to understand…and I don’t think they want to discuss …Doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

No harm meant. Just trying to get people to think. My nephew (regular Army) just arrived back from Iraq and I said some of the same things to him today. We had a very good conversation.

He understands my point of view. He has no use for Bush and the boys in DC, but he will finish his job. I respect his opinion, though I would prefer he seek CO status.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Elaine's Cross:

Maybe others, but I don’t think “huge mistake” should be considered inflammatory or innuendo. It is my opinion along with others. You are entirely within your rights as an American to disagree.

The terms “henchmen” and “not as competent as Hitler” are inflammatory. The comparison of the United States’ actions to those of Nazi Germany… The insinuation that those Catholics who choose not desert either lack understanding or are in a state of sin…The implication that those Catholics who have prayerfully studied the application of the Just War Doctrine and reached a different conclusion than you must deal with it in the confessional…

Maybe its the lack of auditory and visual clues, but in writing you come across as bitter and frustrated, not as reasonable.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Elizabeth B.:

The terms “henchmen” and “not as competent as Hitler” are inflammatory. The comparison of the United States’ actions to those of Nazi Germany… The insinuation that those Catholics who choose not desert either lack understanding or are in a state of sin…The implication that those Catholics who have prayerfully studied the application of the Just War Doctrine and reached a different conclusion than you must deal with it in the confessional…

Maybe its the lack of auditory and visual clues, but in writing you come across as bitter and frustrated, not as reasonable.

Words almost escape me.

Yes, at times I am bitter and frustrated. I was embarrassed from the get-go that our country invaded Iraq. I am embarrassed that so many people were fooled by our government and I feel that GWB is a threat to world peace. Sorry, but that’s the way I feel. BTW, I have never voted Democratic for president.

And I do see some parallels between this country and Nazi Germany. It’s early stage and can be stopped, but time could run out on us if good people remain silent.

As to our soldiers in Iraq sinning, that depends on their knowledge of the Catechism, I guess. Personally, I could not have gone on the invasions. However, there is a certain indoctrination that goes on in the military that helps to remove doubts. I suppose that would absolve one of culpability if one did not know better.

It is not for me to judge one’s soul. However, I can speak out on the act just as the past and present popes have.

 

[Trelow]

I have no chime that gilliam hasn’t already rung.

Whooping bad guys is good.

What happens between saturday morning cartoons and college that makes people forget this?

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Trelow:

Whooping bad guys is good.

Take that up with JPII and Benedict XVI.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

I agree with your statement that there are some parallels between this country and the early stages of Nazi Germany.

However, I believe that if President Bush is a threat to world peace, it is because he is standing up to those who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents. He is standing up to those who stole billions of dollars from the Iraqi people, including the western nations who orchestrated the Oil for Food schemes. These individuals and their counterparts in Iran, Syria, and North Korea are the true threats to world peace.

You are still implying that those in Iraq do not know or understand the Catechism. You further imply that if they disagree, it is probably their indoctrination. Have you considered the possibility that faithful Catholics are free to reach different conclusions on this? After all, the Church’s position in this circumstance was not defined or presented as doctrine.

 

[Trelow]

Elaine's Cross:

Take that up with JPII and Benedict XVI.

Ain’t their call.

 

[toto]

Flawed logic on display.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Elizabeth B.:

He is standing up to those who stole billions of dollars from the Iraqi people, including the western nations who orchestrated the Oil for Food schemes.

The theft involved in the Oil for Food schemes will end up being a pittance compared to what will be stolen from us taxpayers by unscrupulous contractors “rebuilding” Iraq.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Elizabeth B.:

.

You are still implying that those in Iraq do not know or understand the Catechism. You further imply that if they disagree, it is probably their indoctrination. Have you considered the possibility that faithful Catholics are free to reach different conclusions on this? After all, the Church’s position in this circumstance was not defined or presented as doctrine.

I largely agree with you on this as I could never know what is in one’s heart.

However, JPII spoke out against our invasion. Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke out against our invasion. The American bishops spoke out against our invasion. Many priests in this country spoke from the pulpit about it. All that should have raised a few questions.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Elizabeth B.:

You are still implying that those in Iraq do not know or understand the Catechism.

This has been a growing problem since the Second Vatican Council, not just with those in Iraq, but all American Catholics.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Elizabeth B.:

You are still implying that those in Iraq do not know or understand the Catechism. You further imply that if they disagree, it is probably their indoctrination. Have you considered the possibility that faithful Catholics are free to reach different conclusions on this? After all, the Church’s position in this circumstance was not defined or presented as doctrine.

Actually, I really think that only a small percentage have given it that kind of consideration (Catechism). As my nephew told me today, he’s a Christian (no longer a practicing Catholic) who doesn’t believe in organized religion, he doesn’t think it was right of us to invade Iraq, but he swore an oath so he went when he was told. He said he went for his buddies, not the brass or the government.

My SFC (Rangers) brother has made 5 trips to Afghanistan. Last week he told me he thought it was wrong for us to have invaded Iraq, but if he had been sent there rather than Afghanistan, he would have gone as he “swore an oath” to defend this country from enemies both within and without.

Thus, it appears to me that there is at least there is anecdotal evidence that some did not consider the Catechism and that some, maybe the same military personnel, also thought the invasion was wrong, but they went because of an oath.

I find it interesting and confusing that a secular oath would take precedence over a feeling that an action was not right.

They also both recently re-enlisted, noting that the bonuses (brother 20K, nephew 25K) played a role in their decision-making process.

 

[toto]

In response to Elaine’s Cross suggestion that our Armed Forces in Iraq may have a moral duty to desert, perhaps she has a point. After all, do people who are being maimed, tortured, raped, gassed and buried alive by their own government leaders actually have any true moral claim on us? If rescuing our fellow man from the horrors of devils on earth means that we will be called Aggressors or War Mongers, then don’t we have every right to leave those victims to their own devices? Her logic seems to lead me to such a conclusion.
Also, maybe we should use the same standoff mentality standard for our fellow Americans who find themselves in the clutches of kidnappers and rapists. Is the Aggression demonstrated by the local police morally correct? Perhaps we should not come to the rescue of anyone because such help may include that dreaded word ‘Aggression’ that is so offensive to so many of the ‘morally superior’ elite.
Or is it only American’s who deserve to be saved from harm, while those of other countries, cultures and religions will just have to learn to grin and bear it while they are at risk?
I wonder about the intellectual honesty of this whole crowd who promote such lopsided ideas. Do they actually exclude asking for protection and assistance when their own skin is in danger? I doubt it very much. I suspect they wouldn’t hesitate from calling 911 and asking for an armed and **Agressive **police force if a thug was after them. Too bad they don’t truly view others in this world as their true brothers and sisters in Christ, deserving of protection just like themselves and their own family.
We’d still have legalized slavery in this country if this crowd had their way, after all President Lincoln also used armed aggression and War Mongering to rescue his brothers and sisters in Christ from slavery.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

gilliam:

We ALL, no matter what country we are in, or what religion we are, we ALL must help the Iraqis now. Yes, even you and I.

The question is “how should we help the Iraqis?”

We must remember that the entire Middle East has artificially-constructed borders that often have nothing to do with the inhabitants.

Is it proper to help the Iraqis by imposing a secular democracy on them against the wishes of many of their people? I view Islam as a false religion, and if I had my way, would not allow it to be publicly practiced in this country, but if they want an Islamic republic, it’s their business.

Is is proper to force the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to be one nation with artificially-constructed boundaries when many of them would prefer that they be divided into three countries?

Are our politics and strategic interests of our government overruling the wishes of many Iraqis? For example, although many Kurds would like sovereignty, we would never allow it because that would be contrary to the desires of the Turkish government who fear that such a state would cause the Kurds in the eastern part of Turkey to attempt to break off and become part of the new Turkish state.

Then possibly all three groups would fight over certain oil fields in the part of Kurdish territory that lies nearest Sunni and Shiite territory.

Just as it is not right for us to convert pagans to Catholicism under threat of the sword, it is probably not right to convert people to democracy at the point of a gun.

I don’t think the question is whether or not we should help the Iraqis, but how we should help them and it appears to me that we are again botching the job because of our hubris and arrogance which leads us to know what’s best for others in this world.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

toto:

In response to Elaine’s Cross suggestion that our Armed Forces in Iraq may have a moral duty to desert, perhaps she has a point. After all, do people who are being maimed, tortured, raped, gassed and buried alive by their own government leaders actually have any true moral claim on us?

Then when do we attack China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Vietnam (oh, we tried that once), and numerous other countries where their citizenry dwell in tyranny inflicted upon them by their governments? Why did we not attack the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites?

Why do we not attack Israel who won’t give full citizenship to non-Jewish peoples living within its borders?

Libya? Somalia? Indonesia? Rwanda? Ethiopia?

Oh, and Russia and a number of the former Soviet republics are not really bastions of freedom today. Some would say the same about Mexico and a number of Central and South American countries.

Uganda under Idi Amin? Why didn’t we attack him?

How many non-combatants will die in the process of us freeing them. It’s estimated by some that over 100,000 Iraqi non-combatants have died thus far.

How many babies will die in the womb once we free these countries and allow Planned Parenthood to spread their gospel of abortion and contraception just as they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today?

Do we have enough people and money to free all of these helpless people? Once we are bankrupt, how many will we free?

You say my logic is flawed? If so, you and I must be two sides of the same coin.

 

[springbreeze]

gilliam:

Please support the effort to get the Iraqis back on their feet.

Dear Gilliam

I do support the effort to get the Iraqis back on their feet, I just don’t support the war.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[mtr01]

Trelow:

Ain’t their call.

As Christians, the most important thing in our lives is God (or at least it should be. As to whether or not a war is just, I will take the judgement of his earthy vicar over that of a politician every single time.

Psa 118:8 It is good to confide in the Lord, rather than to have confidence in man.
Psa 118:9 It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes.

Psa 146:2 In my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes:
Psa 146:3 In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.

 

[Trelow]

mtr01:

As Christians, the most important thing in our lives is God (or at least it should be. As to whether or not a war is just, I will take the judgement of his earthy vicar over that of a politician every single time.

The Church rightly recognizes that they will not have the same level of intelegence regarding militant actions.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

And today, that would be the governments of the nations.

Ah here ya go, form this same site you are posting on.
catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp
Catholic Answers:

WHO DECIDES?

					   							 								 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

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.
					
					This is not to say that the public has no voice in such matters. 						Particularly in democracies, it does. 						The public elects its leaders and, through public debate, helps guide its leaders' decisions. 						Nevertheless, the general public does not bear ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. 						That belongs "to the prudential judgment" of its political leaders. 						They must evaluate the situation and make their best judgment whether the conditions for just war have been fulfilled.

 

[mtr01]

Trelow:

The Church rightly recognizes that they will not have the same level of intelegence regarding militant actions.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

And today, that would be the governments of the nations.

Ah here ya go, form this same site you are posting on.
catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

I’m well aware of all this. However, recognizing that the prudential judgement resides with the state in no way implies that the prudential judgement of the state is correct or moral or follows the teaching of the Church.

In matters that relate to just war as defined by the Church, I will trust the Church and Christ’s Vicars’s judgement over a politician’s. If you want to throw your hat in with the politicians, be my guest.