NonViolence

[JimR-OCDS]

While we’re on the subject, would the firebombings of Germany and Japan, not be considered acts of immoral violence, even in a just war?

What about fire bombing a French village, two weeks before Germany’s surrender, where German soldiers who had surrendered, were waiting for allied troops to pick them up,… was this an act of immoral violence, even though we were in a just war?

War is evil. When people are engaged in the act of killing, which is violence, no matter how you try to spin it, immoral acts will come about. There hasn’t been a war where immoral acts of violence have not been committed, by both sides.

As the statement from Kurlansky’s 25 lessons of violence proves to be true, " those who go to war, will become like their enemy."

Jim

 

[Ender]

would the firebombings of Germany and Japan, not be considered acts of immoral violence, even in a just war?

They were indisputably acts of violence and I won’t argue that they were moral, my only point is that acts of violence are not inherently immoral … as you seem to recognize by using the phrase “immoral violence”.

War is evil.

If this was true then the Church would condemn it in every instance, like she does with abortion. The fact that she defines such a thing as a just war means that, while war is certainly a tragedy, it is not sinful to participate in just wars.

When people are engaged in the act of killing, which is violence, no matter how you try to spin it …

I agree: all war is violent.

" those who go to war, will become like their enemy."

This is an outrageous insult to the overwhelming majority of the men and women who have served in our military. We have become nothing like the enemies we fought before or are fighting today.

Ender

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JimR-OCDS: As the statement from Kurlansky’s 25 lessons of violence proves to be true, " those who go to war, will become like their enemy."

This is an outrageous insult to the overwhelming majority of the men and women who have served in our military. We have become nothing like the enemies we fought before or are fighting today.

Ender

Ender, the intransigent referral to Kurlansky as an “authority” to be quoted destroys credibility of the one who uses it. Kurlansky is so far on the fringe with regard to reasonable discussion of war and the use of force as to be irrelevant. His views are certainly contrary to the Church which teaches that all war is not evil and in some cases force is a moral obligation.

CC2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

This being said, I appreciate you coming to the defense of the men and women who accept the call to serve their country. As said in the Catechism:

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

**Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. **

This intransigent slur against these servants of the “freedom of nations” is an offense against the truth, a grave matter.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of **calumny **who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is an outrageous insult to the overwhelming majority of the men and women who have served in our military. We have become nothing like the enemies we fought before or are fighting today.

Ender

Really, I think if you read about all the wars we’ve been in, we have done some evils that parallel what the enemy did. Not in all cases, but enough to show that at those moments, our moral credibility was no better than the people we were fighting against.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Orionthehunter

Ender, the intransigent referral to Kurlansky as an “authority” to be quoted destroys credibility of the one who uses it. Kurlansky is so far on the fringe with regard to reasonable discussion of war and the use of force as to be irrelevant. His views are certainly contrary to the Church which teaches that all war is not evil and in some cases force is a moral obligation.

What don’t you debate what he said, rather than attack the man?

I don’t agree with everything Kurlansky wrote in his book, but that doesn’t mean the statements he said which are true, should be thrown out with the parts that I don’t agree with.

Jim

 

[Orionthehunter]

Orionthehunter

What don’t you debate what he said, rather than attack the man?

I don’t agree with everything Kurlansky wrote in his book, but that doesn’t mean the statements he said which are true, should be thrown out with the parts that I don’t agree with.

Jim

You keep quoting Kurlansky specifically on this one quote which is calumny against men and women who serve in armed forces as equally evil as their enemy whether it be Nazi’s, muslim extremist terrorists, etc… You not only don’t distance from yourself, you do it repeatedly and say that it is true.

I could also go through this thread and restate your misrepresentations of Church teaching, Church positions, historical facts, and your belief that you can discern the hearts and motives of others.

The cause of Peace is not served by lies, distortions and the destruction of other’s honor and reputation. I gotta go shake the dust from my sandals.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You keep quoting Kurlansky specifically on this one quote which is calumny against men and women who serve in armed forces as equally evil as their enemy whether it be Nazi’s, muslim extremist terrorists, etc… You not only don’t distance from yourself, you do it repeatedly and say that it is true.

I could also go through this thread and restate your misrepresentations of Church teaching, Church positions, historical facts, and your belief that you can discern the hearts and motives of others.

The cause of Peace is not served by lies, distortions and the destruction of other’s honor and reputation. I gotta go shake the dust from my sandals.

You’re calling me a liar?

Jim

 

[Ender]

Really, I think if you read about all the wars we’ve been in, we have done some evils that parallel what the enemy did. Not in all cases, but enough to show that at those moments, our moral credibility was no better than the people we were fighting against.

This is no different than saying the police are no better than the criminals they pursue because some police commit crimes. Would you apply this generalization to the Church because some priests were child abusers? Our failures are faults of individuals; our enemies faults are embedded in the nature of their systems and beliefs.

Our moral standards in every case since WWII have been vastly higher than that of the enemy we faced.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is no different than saying the police are no better than the criminals they pursue because some police commit crimes. Would you apply this generalization to the Church because some priests were child abusers? Our failures are faults of individuals; our enemies faults are embedded in the nature of their systems and beliefs.

Our moral standards in every case since WWII have been vastly higher than that of the enemy we faced.

Ender

Police who commit crimes are no better than the criminals the arrest. Sometimes entire police departments have become corrupt, to the level that the criminals were less threatening to society. However, police enforcement is not the same as war. For one, a cop can quit his job if he disagrees with the way the department is run. Not so for soldiers.

Same is true of the military, when generals order immoral acts, which are as savage as the enemy they fight against.

As an example, during WWI, November 11, 1918, one hour before the cease fire was to go into effect, the allied forces ordered an attack against German positions, even though they knew the war would end in an hour, and they would have to move back to positions agreed on by the armistice. Soldiers, knowing that the war would be over in one hour, reluctantly attacked and many were killed. Those who refused to attack were executed. There were more men killed on that last hour, than on the D-day invasion of Normandy during WWII.

How different where the allied commanders than that of the Germans, who were the enemy?

Another example is the American Revolution. Loyalist and pacifist, had their homes burned to the ground. Some were tarred and feathered and some where killed. How were they different than the enemy they were fighting against?

Jim

 

[Ender]

Police who commit crimes are no better than the criminals the arrest.

That is true of the individual cop who has gone bad but his failure does not taint the entire force. Overwhelmingly, police are significantly better than the criminals they arrest. The same analogy applies to war: the failure of individuals does not change the inherent values gulf that has separated us from our enemies.

As an example, during WWI, …

Another example is the American Revolution…

Reread my comment; I said: “since WWII”.

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is true of the individual cop who has gone bad but his failure does not taint the entire force. Overwhelmingly, police are significantly better than the criminals they arrest. The same analogy applies to war: the failure of individuals does not change the inherent values gulf that has separated us from our enemies.

Reread my comment; I said: “since WWII”.

Ender

You want me to bring up the immorality committed during the Vietnam War?

I served in the Marines, 1970-72, with the grunts. I did not go to Vietnam but served with those who did. Their stories confirm the case that in many instances, our troops were no better than the enemy they were fighting. At least the enemy was fighting for his own country. Many are in denial over this, but it is a fact.

Jim

 

[Ender]

Their stories confirm the case that in many instances, our troops were no better than the enemy they were fighting.

I did not deny that individuals in the US military sometimes committed acts of brutality. What I claimed was that those actions were the acts of individuals, not the directions of the military - as opposed to the NVA and VC where terrorizing civilians was the policy.

Still, I didn’t serve in the Marines so perhaps you tell me how you were trained to kill civilians and torture prisoners. I’m quite sure that wasn’t taught in the Army.

At least the enemy was fighting for his own country. Many are in denial over this, but it is a fact.

Actually, North Vietnam and South Vietnam were two separate countries, like North and South Korea. It was the North that invaded the South (in both instances), not vice versa.

But this is a bit off the subject. The topic is nonviolence and I think this includes the implication that no war is just and that the nonviolent (pacifist) position is somehow more moral than the stance taken by those who judge that violence is the proper response in certain instances. In other words, Gandhi was right and Augustine was wrong. Obviously I disagree. More to the point, the Church disagrees.

Ender

 

[Amolibri]

Fr. Dear’s latest article: a challenge

The Catholic campaign to end Iraq war
By John Dear SJ
Created Aug 21 2007 - 11:14

As I ready myself for trial Sept. 6 for trying a year ago to persuade my senator to oppose the Iraq War, I’m happy that a new organization of Catholics opposed to the war has formed. On July 12, Catholics United, a nonpartisan organization, launched “Catholics for an End to the War in Iraq” to encourage U.S. Catholics to advocate for diplomacy, redevelopment and a “responsible withdrawal” of U.S. troops from Iraq.
What a positive step and a hopeful sign! I’m convinced, of course, that every American Catholic should actively oppose this evil war, with every priest and bishop leading the way. Alas, thousands of them continue to support the war, as I frequently hear on my travels around the country.
This notwithstanding Vatican condemnation of the war. Asked about Vatican policy on Iraq, in 2003, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said, “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destruction that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’”
Just a month ago, now as Pope Benedict XVI, he called upon the nations of the world to end these “useless slaughters.”
Another sign of hope came June 23, 2007. In a historic letter, 14 Catholic members of Congress, including my great friend Dennis Kucinich, wrote an open letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, asking them to help Congress end the war in Iraq. Writing to Bishop William S. Skylstad, the conference president, and Bishop Thomas Wenski, head of the International Justice and Peace Committee, these members of congress asked for a meeting with the bishops’ conference to discuss how members of Congress could work with the bishops to mobilize public action to end the war.
Full article at: ncrcafe.org/node/1272