UPDATE: Damn... I have to learn to have patience with blogspot... When I posted this (& then sent the link to the guy with whom I was conversing), the second half of the comment wasn't in the thread over at Nero's blog. I thought he'd deleted it... Half hour later, it's there... I was wrong to think he cut me off... (I might not've, had he not done so before). I'm sorry I accused him, and that I did all this unnecessary maneuvering to get my thoughts posted & before the person to whom they were directed... Oh well... ---------
The original post & comment thread are here and here. (I wish Nero would just grow up & let adults have in-depth conversations rather than counting words, but it is his blog, & his rules...) -----------
You weren't talking about the current conflict.
I was talking about all conflicts, including Iraq...
You were coming off with one of these love, peace, and flowers lines.
Yeah, sorry about having ideals... Gosh fo'bid. Scurry on back to your regularly scheduled reality, and forget I said anything...
As far as Benedict XVI, he has never condemned the war in Iraq, nor has he called it unjust.
The War in Iraq - A Roman Catholic View - John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the War in Iraq: n the April 2003 issue of 30 Days, an Italian Catholic magazine, the future pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made his opposition to the war known, while supporting Pope John Paul’s assessment of the justice of the war. He declared Pope John Paul’s position on the war to be “the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church” and “the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith.”
Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:
"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."
New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War : After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:
"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 destructions 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'."
As for the death penalty, I suggest you read Humanae Vitae.
I will do so when I have time... though I think that summary of the Church's position from my last comment was pretty clear...
I am curious, though. Being a Catholic myself, I am surrounded by smug, self-righteous latte liberal Catholics who are always whining about Iraq and the death penalty, yet have no problem with using birth control -- which the Church opposes as violently as it does abortion -- or speaking of, murdering their own children. Cafeteria Catholics have no business quoting the positions of the Church, since they feel they can ignore the Church when it suits their purposes.
Yeah, but the point of my last few comments is that that kinda hypocritical thinking goes both ways... Save the unborn, so they can die in war, or be put to death at another's hand for breaking the laws of man... Life is life. If it's sacred, it's sacred.
But thanks for the "My God can beat up your God" talk... Always nice to see that humility before the Lord... (Clue... God & faith ain't clubs with which to beat your fellow man... I'm glad your God makes you feel powerful 'n' all, but being all belligerent & holier-than-thou (literally) about it don't impress me in the slightest.) We all have our own relationships with our faith, and I can assure you that you haven't got any more of a lock on the one true path than any of the rest of us, whatever you may think...
If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this site, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.
And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...
It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...
(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert F. Kennedy
"'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals.'" - Digby
"It is entirely possible for a non-soldier to advocate war without being a chickenhawk. A chickenhawk is someone who ascribes the bravery of soldiers in wartime to themselves because they take a pro-war position, not someone who simply argues for war without fighting in it. Pretending that supporting the war is as courageous as fighting it is the hallmark of the chickenhawk." - Midwest Product - July 27, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
----------------------------------------------------------- Repsac3: "I don't know who I feel more sorry for; snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or Donald, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice."
Associate Professor Donald Douglas: "I serve my country ever day teaching students, many of whom are the first in their families to go to college.
The most disadvantaged ones, and those who have served, thank me for my instruction and moral integrity, and they share with me their shame at anti-Americans like yourself." ------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate teachers as much as the next guy (& more than many), but how many teachers are making the same kinda sacrifices as those who serve in the military? While I'm glad the man has such a lofty opinion of himself & his chosen profession, I think it arrogant of Professor Douglas to put himself & his "service" in the same class as anyone who fought (& was wounded, no less) in battle while serving our country.
Donald Douglas: Chickenhawk, or stalwart associate professor of political science, serving on the battlefield of American community college education, just as bravely as our military men & women, protecting & defending America throughout the world?
While Democrats are constantly forced by manufactured controversies generated by the right-wing noise machine and their media allies to "repudiate" and "renounce" a never ending carousel of "extremists" ranging from the moderate to the irrelevant (Michael Moore, MoveOn, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. etc.), the GOP establishment for years has tied itself at the hip to hate-mongering extremists along the lines of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Roberston, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of various Instapunks, with no repercussions or accountability whatsoever.- Glenn Greenwald - Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Salon.com
The big mantra was ‘Yes, we can!’ Unless you’re a gay couple in California, then it’s, ‘No, you can’t.’” -Jay Leno
The law of the land?
"I think Sean Hannity's, Bill O'Reilly's, and Lou Dobbs's heads would simultaneously explode if a man named Piyush Jindal was running for President of the United States against a man named Barack Hussein Obama." - Gambler | 02.24.09 - 11:46 pm | #