Vatican City, 12 September 2012 (VIS) - Given below is the text of a declaration made by Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi following episodes of violence in the Libyan city of Benghazi yesterday.
"Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions is an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The serious consequences of unjustified offense and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in their turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence.
"The message of dialogue and respect for all believers of different religions, which the Holy Father is preparing to carry with him on his forthcoming trip to Lebanon, indicate the path that everyone should follow in order to construct shared and peaceful coexistence among religions and peoples".
And from our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:
"At this hour in two days' time", the Holy Father said, "I will be on a plane bound for Lebanon. I rejoice at this apostolic trip which will enable me to meet many members of Lebanese society: the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, Catholic faithful of various rites, other Christians, and the Muslims and Druze of the region. I thank the Lord for this rich variety, which will be able to continue only if people live in permanent peace and reconciliation. For this reason I exhort all Christians of the Middle East, both those born there and the newly arrived, to be builders of peace and architects of reconciliation. Let us pray to God that He may fortify the faith of Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East, and fill them with hope. I thank God for their presence and call upon the entire Church to show solidarity, that they may continue to bear witness to Christ in those blessed lands, seeking communion in unity. I thank God for all the individuals and institutions who, in many ways, help them to do so. The history of the Middle East teaches us the important and sometimes primordial role. played by the various Christian communities in inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue Let us ask God to give that region of the world its longed-for peace, and respect for legitimate differences. May God bless Lebanon and the Middle East. May God bless you".
62 comments:
". . . The serious consequences of unjustified offense and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in their turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence."
At 7:24 am I received a copy of today's VISnews containing this offensive obsequity.
At 8:31 am I receive a 2nd copy, identical except for the deletion of this unfortunate statement.
I wonder whether in the intervening hour someone jerked the chain of the Vatican's ever bumbling press office director.
In December 2001, the day after we started operations in Afgahnistan, I stated to my co-workers my belief that I would never again see Peace in my lifetime, and in fact doubted the world would ever see Peace until war between Christian Muslim was settled permanently. And I don't mean a negotiated settlement.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Islam is our enemy, and they should be treated the same way we have treated other enemies in the past. We stop killing them when they submit, and not before.
Now, I see that I got them reversed. The 2nd version is the one that contained the offensive statement. So it was INSERTED, not deleted.
Yes, Templar, if the sentiments expressed in your statement are widely shared, particularly by those in power, you are right: we will never see Peace in our lifetimes. However, we significantly enhance the prospects of Peace if we use our national brains as well as our national brawn, which is why I so highly prize the virtue of wisdom in leaders. I pray that they may have more – much more – of it.
Does anyone but me see that statement as version of 'you know how those people act' statement? Isn't it condescending?
Wisdom eh? You seem to be missing the point A2. These "people" of Islam just killed Americans in Libya, and damn near did so in Egypt because some Coptic Christians made a YouTube video about how they were oppressed and abused in Egypt. A video, which regardless of whether I agree with it or not, happens to be protected in America by US Law as Free Speech. Pray tell, how does one apply wisdom to barbarians? Wisdom is wonderful between compatible, or civilized cultures. The Musloids are neither. Open warfare to the Death with them will be THEIR choice whether we think it wise or not, because their "god" calls them to it.
It's not wisdom to ignore the stark truth staring you in the eyes.
rcg: I think it's deplorable that the US Government is making excuses for making the Musloids mad. Christians are insulted endlessly in this country and where's the sensitive apology? Mormons, Jews, Scientologists...you name it, all are the target of insults from various comedians, journalists, and politicians. But heaven forbid someone make a stupid video or cartoon about Islam and the US Government is falling all over itself to apologize and make excuses. It's disgusting.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
Ah, yes, Libya...how could they! I mean Obammy was just over there bowing and scraping to all the high muckety-muck Muslims. Gee, I guess all that kissing up wasn't enough. He'll have to go back and apologize some more.
Yes, Templar, wisdom. And it is wise to get all the relevant facts before deciding on what the “truth” of the matter actually is and making a decision. Do you disagree?
IMHO the video was was just a ploy to get the lemmings on the left to make excuses for the enemy. You can't tell me it was just a coincidence that the attack occurred on 911.
What facts am I missing dear A2? Please enlighten us.
We need deeds not words. The other side clearly understands that and exploits or stupid tendency for political correctness to our disadvantage. You keep talking, and I'll keep buying 5.556, we'll see which works better when the mob comes to our doors.
Hereis another timely and timeless Churchill quote: "Islam in a man is as dangerous as rabies in a dog."
For a fresh perspective on all these matters may I recommend the following 2008 article by that very conservative (and apparently Catholic turned Evangelical) writer Dinesh d”Souza. Some of his points may surprise you:
http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/09/15/who_speaks_for_islam/page/full/
So, Templar, I would suggest that you might want to consider facts (or at least perspectives) like these, not to mention the precise facts surrounding the incidents in Libya and Egypt, which it takes a while to ascertain.
This is a bit long, but I guess no one went to Mass today. The gospel seems clear to me!
GOSPEL
Luke 6:27-38
Jesus said to his disciples:
“To you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.
That is an interesting quote, Gene, which I had not seen before. I have done a bit of preliminary research and it seems it comes from a book by the young Winston after fighting in Afghanistan and the Sudan. So, I have to wonder whether his perceptions of Islam were colored by his particular experiences in two areas of the world that are not exactly the poster child for Islam in general.
And I am sorry, Gene, but before we get all high and mighty about how civilized we are in the West and how backward and savage the Islamic world is (presumably all 1.7 billion of them), perhaps we should recall the trench warfare of the First World War as well as the Nazi Holocaust and the Allied terror bombing of the Second. Yes, we produced modern science and technology, and yes we should celebrate the great achievements of the West and not engage in ignorant self-hatred as some on the extreme Left have been wont to do, but let’s not be blind to our own faults/sin either. We should be realistic and clear-eyed about everything.
A2 is it possible that you can actually post a defense of your own position instead of the 3 condescending posts you've sent my way so far? No doubt your superior intellect as an Elite member of Academia can string together some basic sentences on the facts I seem to be missing, in lieu of sending me a "very brief" atricle that is an 4 year old apologetic for why the Musloids are just misunderstood.
Islam says and does all the things we should be doing, and is winning the war against Western Civilization. We sit here wallowing in depravity and believe we can dialog with them. They hate the west, they hate what the west stands for, they will not stop until the west is extreminated either through birth rates or bombs, either will work they are not picky.
And as Father’s post emphasizes, here is another relevant perspective that is essential for us to remember as Catholics:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hOCteTuslUt1wTAW6U3D77OKESQw?docId=CNG.4194738242b39dee406aba2f904942df.1c1
The article contains some interesting observations that underscore the complexity of the situation in the Middle East and the importance of wise decision-making that properly responds to that complexity instead of unwise decision-making that engages in a simplifying reductionism, so that if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Well, in case anyone's still here, the stumbling bumbling Vatican press office--ever slow to get its act together--has basically withdrawn yesterday's widely criticized PC knee jerk statement and issued the following substitute that finally condemns the Muslim violence:
The very serious attack organised against the United States diplomatic mission in Libya, which led to the death of the ambassador and of other functionaries, calls for the firmest possible condemnation on the part of the Holy See. Nothing, in fact, can justify the activity of terrorist organisations and homicidal violence. Along with our sadness, mourning and prayers for the victims, we again express the hope that, despite this latest tragedy, the international community may discover the most favourable ways to continue its commitment in favour of peace in Libya and the entire Middle East."
With respect, Henry, the Vatican did not “basically withdraw” its previous statement. What it did was to respond appropriately as the facts (yes those pesky facts I keep on mentioning) became clearer by issuing an additional statement responding to those facts. Isn’t that exactly what it should have done?:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203823.htm
And Templar, I really do apologize if my comments came across as condescending. I think you should know by now that I regard myself as a work in progress. There is much that I do not know and much that I still have to learn. All I am really suggesting is that I may not be the only one in this position, and I have attempted to share with you and others the results of my researches as I learn more about various issues, including this one. I truly believe that you may be acting upon limited and sometimes erroneous information. You may well believe the same about me. So, if you have pertinent and specific information that you would like to share with us to support conclusions such as “they hate the west, they hate what the west stands for, they will not stop until the west is exterminated either through birth rates or bombs, either will work they are not picky,” I for one would be very pleased to receive it. And that information needs to be more than pointing to various atrocities committed by Muslim extremists. We all know that information.
BTW, if you want something longer than d’Souza’s article, I recommend his book “The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.”
Anon 2, The wars of Western European civilizations were due to concrete causes and substantive disputes over territory and resources...not because somebody burned a Bible or called someone names. It may not be morally pleasing, but at least it makes sense to attack somebody because they have taken your land or resources or because they threaten your borders.
It may also be argued that the modern scientific weapons you wring your hands about actually shortened the war and made it less devastating than it would have been if we had fought until,say, 1948. Allied planners projected a million casualties if we had invaded the Japaese homeland where they still had four million troops under arms and where every old geezer, woman, and child who could wield a spear would have been in the streets and hills fighting to the death. Now, the allied bombing should not be called "terror bombing." You are such a lib in spite of yourself. Churchill and Roosevelt both agonized over bombing German cities, thus causing civilian casualties. Churchill warned that we must be careful that "we do not lose the very values we are fighting to preserve"...then they bombed the Hell out of the Krauts. Good choice! It was bombing in response to the German bombing of Britain and the sinking of non-combatant ships, not terror bombing...get it? (Fr. has forbidden me to use the word 'moron' in my posts.)
Now, to Anon who loves to quote the Beatitudes and the parables of the Kingdom. These are eschatological teachings of how we should live in the Kingdom...which has not come yet when I last checked. Christ's exhortations to such extraordinary behavior are designed to highlight the distance between our sinful lives and the life of the Kingdom, which is only partially realized in Him and in the Church, only to be completed upon His return and not because of our righteous works. These sayings were not intended to be used as little moralistic aphorisms like those stupid "good thought for the day" calendars I see on bureaucrats' desks. They represent and emphasize the vast gulf between our fallen world, our sin, and the power of the Cross...the Triumph of Christ's Grace. To interpret them any other way is to cheapen that Victory.
Templar, Let me add one other thought if I may: Just as many of us in America are ill informed about 1.7 billion Muslims living in more than fifty majority Muslim countries (and in many others as a minority), so also many Muslims are badly misinformed about the West and 300 plus million Americans. So, to the extent they do hate us, much of that hatred stems from false perceptions and lack of understanding. Surely, then, increasing mutual understanding can only help to reduce tensions and hatreds. As I understand it, that is what the Holy Father is calling for and trying to promote. As Catholics, shouldn’t we be supporting those efforts, not undermining them?
Gene,
First of all, I mentioned more than terror bombing; I mentioned the Nazi Holocaust. Perhaps you can explain to me why the Holocaust “made sense”?
Second, I am completely open to correction if you can cite me to relevant sources supporting your contention that “Churchill and Roosevelt both agonized over bombing German cities, thus causing civilian casualties. Churchill warned that we must be careful that ‘we do not lose the very values we are fighting to preserve’". But that is not my understanding of the historical record (at least as far as Churchill is concerned; I express no opinion about Roosevelt).
I will let the following essay in Wikipedia speak for itself in response to both that contention and your contention that “It was bombing in response to the German bombing of Britain and the sinking of non-combatant ships, not terror bombing”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
This gets very personal with me, so perhaps my judgment is clouded a bit by emotion. That is not because you imply I am a “moron” or call me a “lib” (as much as Pat Buchanan is a “lib” I suppose – see generally “Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World” (2008), but especially 393-99). I don’t care about that (well, not too much, anyway =)). I am used to meaningless labels and taunts. No, it gets personal with me because my British grandparents were bombed by the Germans in Southampton, my father fought with the British 49th infantry (The Polar Bears) during the War, and my mother, a “Kraut” university student in Cologne, was the victim of Allied Terror Bombing and strafing that left her permanently traumatized and her family (including my "Kraut" grandparents, uncle, and aunts) displaced towards the end of the War.
So, please, allow me to have some idea what I am talking about when I refer to “terror bombing,” for whatever euphemism you may use to describe it, the intention and the result was to terrorize the enemy into submission.
War is probably the closest thing to hell on this earth, as I am sure readers of this Blog who have experienced it will readily confirm, and we should do everything we can to avoid it except as a last resort. I make no apologies for saying this. It is not unpatriotic, and it is very Catholic.
First of all, I would not rely upon Wikipedia as a source for historical information...
As unthinkable a horror as the Nazi Holocaust was, it was not the cause of the war, which was actually the point I was making.
Interestingly, the term "terror bombing" was first used by Joseph Goebbells as a propaganda tool to dsescribe the Allied air campaigns. Like you, he thought the Allies were really mean to bomb German cities and industrial sites...never mind that it was all in response to the German bombing of civilians. In the simplest understanding, THEY STARTED IT! The term, "terror bombing" came into use after the war due to hindsight moral upset and other hand wringing.
The discussions between Churchill and FDR on the bombing of German cities were, I thought, common historicalk knowledge. I believe you can find Churchill talking about it in his "History of the Second World War," and I believe Max Hastings mentions it in his WW II history, as well (I am at my daughter's house and do not have my books). The statement I put in quotes above is nearly a direct quote from Churchill.
Of course we should avoid war if possible; of course it is a horror. But, there have always been people out there who wantr to kill us and we should never lose the capacity for the ruthlessness it requires to deal with ruthless opponents.
Now, someone has said, "people get the kind of government they deserve." The German population supported Hitler; the Japanese supported Tojo; the rabble in the Midle East support their despots. Shame, that...
Please accept my apology for the allusion to morons...I become exasperated sometimes when good people like yourself exhibit what I interpret to be weakness in the face of threats to our way of life and when they feel guilty for the things our parents did to save the free world. There is nothing wrong with killing those who are trying to kill you...
A2, you're driving me crazy. Our portion of this threads conversation started with me making a statement about how I believe that war to the hilt between Islam and the rest of the world is eventual and unavoidable. You followed up by telling me to get my facts straight becasue I didn't know the whoel story. I asked you a few times to elaborate. Now you, having still failed to support your position with anything other than your opinion that my opinion is based on not knowing what I'm talking about, ask me to prove my points with facts. Is this your customary manner of debate? Ad hominem attacks, followed by blunder and circular argument?
Okay, but since you asked, I will try to cite a few reasons why I content that Islam hates the west and is intent on it's destruction.
1) WTC Bombing 1998
2) USS Stark
3) USS Cole
4) Mellenium Bombing Plot
5) 9/11
6) 7/7
7) Kenya Embassy Bombing
8) Tanzanian Embassy Bombing
I believe all of these attacks happened in advance of any US operations in Iraq or Afghanistan so let us not use the old canard of the poor down trod Musloids merely defending themselves.
9) Sharia - Their laws, which thy have as a goal making them applicable in all countries, are barbaric and hostile to non-believers (us).
10) Quran - Their Holy Book is hostile to all non-believers (us).
They want us dead or subjugated. Their actions, their laws, and their scripture says this openly.
Now dialog and conversation to avoid conflict are wonderful things. Even the Soviet Union wanted it's people to survive and therefor cold be talked to on equal terms. The Muzzies don't want to talk with us unless the conversation begins with our submission to Allah, and his Justice.
Gene,
The point I get from A2 is not why WWI, the Holocaust, and strategic bombing were carried out, but the fact that they were carried out. Even LeMay admitted, after the war, that had the US lost, he would likely have been tried for war crimes. In modern industrialized warfare, the means increasingly dwarf whatever ends that might come of them.
A2: The question is whether these things (WWI etc.) were true expressions of Western, Christian values or not. Likewise, is "radical" Islam an expression of "true" Islam or not? I haven't done any research on Islam in a long time, but it seems to me that in his review, d'Souza was more interested in using Islam to slam 1960's liberals than he was in exploring Islam. I found myself wanting to ask if the mainstream Islam he describes bears the same relation to true, historical Islam as VII Catholicism has to historical Catholicism (i.e., not very much).
I know there's been a ton of argument over (for instance) the Verse of the Sword and the proper meaning of jihad. Many people proclaim Islam to be peaceful. But how is it that they claim to be the authoritative interpreters of what it means to be Muslim? And how do they claim this in light of the fact that, unlike Christianity, Islam initially spread by military conquest? (Christianity's excesses came later, and are generally agreed to be failings rather than true expressions of Christianity.)
To anon who posted the Gospel: Sounds nice. If you're standing there watching a psychopath screaming and running towards your spouse or your young child while waving a bloody broadsword, how would you apply it? Does it make no allowance for the selfless defense of others in the face of an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm to them? May we then extrapolate from this scenario to the concept of defensive war, or at least defensive action of a more limited type?
Gene,
I accept your apology in the same spirit of reconciliation in which you have given it. Thank you.
On the merits, I would like to believe your narrative of events. Indeed, for many years I did. Churchill was a hero to us (and in many ways still is). However, I learned over the years that the narrative is not accurate. My mother, who was something of an amateur scholar of the War and social commentary generally, and who for obvious reasons was highly motivated to discover the truth of what had happened to her and why, undertook a great deal of research into the emerging revisionist literature during her life.
There is now a lot of historical work out there that supports the narrative I presented. The Wikipedia article simply draws on it. It has become rather clear that the Allies were far more savage in their bombing of German cities and civilians than the Germans ever were, and that they deliberately targeted civilians far more extensively, and sooner, than the Germans. (Of course, let’s not forget the unspeakable evil of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime.) The huge disparity in numbers of casualties is itself pretty convincing evidence but there is so much more. Please read the section at the end of the Wikipedia entry on “The British Later in the War”. Here is a direct link to that section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#The_British_later_in_the_war
You could also read this book review:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/overy_03_07.html
Or this one:
http://www.whale.to/b/veale_b.html
And you can read this BBC account:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml
I am sorry to puncture the myths. But, in my view, based on the evidence as it now seems to stand, we should be clear-eyed and stop making excuses for the inexcusable savagery and barbarism that we “civilized” Westerners have perpetrated, especially (but not only) in the form of “total war.” Of course, as always, if you can present contrary evidence, I am very happy to receive it. My interest is in the pursuit of truth, which is why we should celebrate our great achievements as well. There are many things of which new can be justly proud.
As to the Middle East, you might want to check out how the Bush Administration types could not wait to take credit for the “Arab Spring” to help justify their misadventure in Iraq. I will let Russell Kirk’s commentary on the first Iraq War say what needs to be said about such folly. Of course, as we all know, Kirk was a real leftie:
http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
This is why I seek wisdom, not naivite, in our political leaders.
Templar, I do not mean to exasperate you any more than you mean to exasperate me.
What I find most exasperating about your comments is that you conflate the actions of Muslim extremists with “Islam,” “Muslims” (sorry, “Muzloids” or “Muzzies” -- what is your derogatory language telling us?) and talk about what “they” think or what “they” are planning to do. Your examples of terrorist acts do not prove that “Islam hates the West and is intent on its destruction.” For goodness sake, we could have said the same thing about the IRA and the Irish and Irish Catholics but we didn’t. We knew better. We also knew many decent and reasonable Irish. How many Muslims do you know, Templar? How many have you spoken with about their faith and their beliefs? It’s fine if you haven’t; what isn’t fine is forming your opinions without doing so or without learning more about Islam. You might even be right in your opinions, but what basis do you currently have for generalizing from the actions and views of extremists to “all Muslims” or even “most Muslims”? That is bad reasoning.
Moreover, based on what I know so far, I think you are wrong to generalize about the interpretation of Sharia Law and the Quran as you do. The Islamic world is extremely varied and complex. There is, today, what some have called the “struggle for the soul of Islam.” That is the challenge for Muslims and that is the challenge for the West. What I want in our leaders are people who understand the complexities and who know how best to respond to each set of circumstances. I do not claim to be a great expert on Islam and the Islamic world. But I sincerely hope that those who know more than we do are in charge of making the important decisions. And I don’t mean Sean Hannity.
I do know some things, but it is clear to me that this Blog is not the place to try to share all that. I have given you some references, to an article and to a book. I can give you an additional reference to another book: “Understanding Islamic Law (Sharia)” by Raj Bhala (who is Catholic BTW), published in 2011. You can always start with the following “simple” overview, however. Perhaps I should send the link to Sean Hannity too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Anon 5: Thank you for getting my point. Also, you make the very cogent observation that Western Civilization is much more than the atrocities and excesses of WWII and that we should at least be open to the argument that Islam and the Islamic world are so much more than the atrocities and excesses of extremists. Regarding the merits of that argument, I refer to my reply to Templar above.
This comment got lost in cyberspace so I am sending it again:
Gene,
I accept your apology in the same spirit of reconciliation in which you have given it. Thank you.
On the merits, I would like to believe your narrative of events. Indeed, for many years I did. Churchill was a hero to us (and in many ways still is). However, I learned over the years that the narrative is not accurate. My mother, who was something of an amateur scholar of the War and social commentary generally, and who for obvious reasons was highly motivated to discover the truth of what had happened to her and why, undertook a great deal of research into the emerging revisionist literature during her life.
There is now a lot of historical work out there that supports the narrative I presented. The Wikipedia article simply draws on it. It has become rather clear that the Allies were far more savage in their bombing of German cities and civilians than the Germans ever were, and that they deliberately targeted civilians far more extensively, and sooner, than the Germans. (Of course, let’s not forget the unspeakable evil of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime.) The huge disparity in numbers of casualties is itself pretty convincing evidence but there is so much more). Please read the section at the end of the Wikipedia entry on “The British Later in the War”. Here is a direct link to that section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#The_British_later_in_the_war
You could also read this book review:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/overy_03_07.html
Or this one:
http://www.whale.to/b/veale_b.html
And you can read this BBC account:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml
I am sorry to puncture the myths. But, in my view, based on the evidence as it now seems to stand, we should be clear-eyed and stop making excuses for the inexcusable savagery and barbarism that we “civilized” Westerners have perpetrated, especially (but not only) in the form of “total war.” Of course, as always, if you can present contrary evidence, I am very happy to receive it. My interest is in the pursuit of truth, which is why we should celebrate our great achievements as well. There are many things of which new can be justly proud.
As to the Middle East, you might want to check out how the Bush Administration types could not wait to take credit for the “Arab Spring” to help justify their misadventure in Iraq. I will let Russell Kirk’s commentary on the first Iraq War say what needs to be said about such folly. Of course, as we all know, Kirk was a real leftie:
http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
This is why I seek wisdom, not naivete, in our political leaders
Oh well, Gene, my reply to you suddenly materialized out of cyberspace but it was definitely not on my screen before I re-sent it. Sorry for the duplication. Now I have inflicted myself upon you twice. Either that, or you can't get too much of a good thing =).
Okay, now I'm seeing the problem with you A2. You're just a Liberal, and therefore full of self loathing, I get it. We (the west, the US, the UK, the white man, fill in the group of choice) can't ever be the good guys, because you Libs all just know how horrible we are deep down inside.
Give me a break. We bombed the hell out of Europe and Japan in WW2 BECAUSE WE COULD, and BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD STRATEGY. Of course we did magnitudes more damage to them then they did to us, we had the capability to wage strategic warfare and they did not. I suppose it would have been "jolly good cricket" to refrain from Strategic Warfare because it's not very sporting and all that. You want to blame someone for the barbarism of the events go blame the Progressives who destroyed the Royal Families of Europe after WWI, and the wonderful introduction of mob rule that has come forth. The Liberals turned the mobs lose, and now want to stand back in horror when the mob behaves like what it is.
As for the Muzloids...oh yes, I know just a few. I have spent time in the Middle East, worked with our "friends and allies" in the Middle East, and their loathing and hatred for the West is evident and casual. It reminded me of how Films portray the casual nature of racism in the South in 50s and 60s, barely disguised. And these are OUR FRIENDS IN THE REGION. I've also spent a ton of time in Europe, much of it in England, and I see exactly where your kind of mindset has led the once great nations of Europe into the crapper with the liberal twaddle that was foisted upon them between the late 18th Century and the early 20th century. It's all come home to roost now, and now folks with that mindset want to apply the same yard stick to dealing with the Muzzies.
You know, in some ways I envy the Heretics of Islam. They at least believe in what they are fighting for, no matter how misguided, and aren't ashamed to be quite forth right about it. We on the other hand are beset from without and from within, but the bigger danger comes from within, by Progressives who want to hate their own heritage, never see the good that has been done, or the sacrifices that have been made for the benefits of the world. The enemy knows this and loves to exploit it.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice! -- Barry Goldwater
Stop reading revisionist paplum it's rotting your mind against yourself.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is still extremism." - Pater Ignotus
Anon 2, Bless your heart...you are the one who is being misled by revisionist history. It has become popular, in this egalitarian, cultural-equivalence world, to teach that all sides were equally guilty in WW II (or any other war), that America ain't so great, that we were mean to Japan for cutting off their oil, and that, oh, eww, oh...we committed terrible atrocities just like everybody else. Nonsense. You fight and win wars by killing the enemy, destroying his resources, and taking his land...period. We did that; we won, we haven't done it since, which is why we are such a pitiful laughing stock among the more virile, vigorous, and aggressive nations. That pitiful pretender in the White House is an embarassment to true Americans everywhere and a blot upon the Presidency that can never be removed. You sound like the kind of guy who would find his wife being raped by thugs in the kitchen and who would stand by wringing his hands and trying to reason with them.
Anon5, do you really give a damn about trying to hash out all that good Muslim/bad Muslim crap? If there are a hundred rattlesnakes in your back yard, and I tell you some of them do not bite, what are you gonna' do?
Thank you for your comment, Templar. I actually do appreciate it, because it helps to clarify some important matters.
First, I respect your own experiences. You clearly do have a basis for your opinions since you have spent time in the Middle East and therefore have some important direct knowledge. Thank you for sharing some of your background with us. Perhaps you should have stated this earlier. It might have prevented the need to press you on the issue.
However, I hope that you will similarly respect the fact that others may have different experiences and different perceptions. I have never lived in the Middle East myself. I have, however, come to know several Muslims over the years, both here and in Europe. Some have been from the Middle East; others have been from other parts of the world. I have friends and colleagues who also have lived in the Middle East and their perceptions are quite different from yours. This does not mean that either you, or they, are wrong. It means that one should avoid generalizations from a limited data set. And that is all I have been saying in this thread. It also means that we should gather as much information, including varied experiences and perceptions, in order to build a more complete picture as we seek truth in complexity.
Second, I am sorry but calling me a Liberal is too easy. My views on the Second World War are very close to those of Pat Buchanan, and my views about the Middle East are very close to those of Russell Kirk. Please see references in my earlier comments. I self-identify as a Burkean conservative (a rare breed now that the word “conservative” has been hijacked by extremists on the Right). As such, I have no self-loathing for the West but celebrate our achievements as well as our shortcomings. Again, please see my earlier comments. When you go to confession, do you present yourself as perfect? I assume not. If you and I as individuals are so flawed, what on earth makes you think that our civilization, made up of flawed and sinful individuals, is not similarly flawed?
Now, do you see why I call labeling a shortcut for thought? Nice try, though. Oh dear, I forgot – Pat Buchanan and Russell Kirk are Liberals too. Sorry, you win.
Labeling is useful shorthand, although it does not address what libs like to call "nuances." Templar and I use labels, you academics like to dress things up a bit with more sophisticated "labels" like "Burkean Conservative," "Jeffersonian," and "Marxist Intellectual"...a wonderful oxymoron. Now, what is this business of "views" on the Second World War? You remind me of my female office manager (yes, blonde) who saw the film "Titanic" and complained that she did not like the ending. LOL!!!
Pater Ignotus in defense of wimpism is still Pater Ignotus. LOL!
P.S. I need to clarify a point, Templar. My original point was that we in the West have perpetrated our own barbarisms. Here I had in mind the West as a whole, not the Allies in particular. The Allies were part of it but the Axis was the other part of it. The Second World War was largely a self-inflicted Western Civil War. That is my point. The West produced Hitler and the Holocaust, Muslims didn’t. And the West engaged in total war. We did that. Muslims didn’t. Please don’t tell me that it was okay for the British fighter pilot to strafe my mother, a German civilian, because he “could.” Or that it was okay for the Allies to firebomb Dresden because we “could.” These were war crimes, and had the Allies lost, the war crimes trials would have had different defendants. Whatever happened to just war doctrine (jus in bello)?
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Just_War_Theory.htm
And you can’t blame Vatican II for that one! We should remember that we are Catholics first, before we are anything else. I for one will try not to worship a false god.
But all that said, thank goodness America came to Europe’s rescue eventually to put an end to the insanity. It annoys me to witness so much anti-Americanism in Europe. People should learn more about history. Isn’t that what I have been urging all along?
Gene,
“You sound like the kind of guy who would find his wife being raped by thugs in the kitchen and who would stand by wringing his hands and trying to reason with them.”
I will let the absurdity of your statement speak for itself.
“Templar and I use labels, you academics like to dress things up a bit with more sophisticated "labels" like "Burkean Conservative," "Jeffersonian," and "Marxist Intellectual"...a wonderful oxymoron.”
“You academics.” There you go again.
Gene: I agree that there are Muslims--probably a whole bunch of them--who are engaged in a religious war to blow us off the map. If the 9/11 bombers had had nukes, does anyone on this blog doubt that they would have used them--or that others will use them?
I'm here merely engaged in an exercise to try to discover to what degree this tendency is honestly due to "true" Islam, and part of that is to determine what "true" Islam is.
Templar and A2: If the choice is between Hitler and Tojo firebombing us and us firebombing them, I would choose the latter, not merely out of the spirit of self-preservation (which Christian morality might deem insufficient reason), but out of a hope and belief that Western values ultimately will do a better job of protecting all human dignity than would National Socialism or Japanese militarism. That doesn't mean that frying women and children alive isn't a hellish thing to do, but is there really an alternative if we're living in a broken world?
All in all, I think Herman Wouk saidf it best in The Winds of War. Perhaps its statement that everyone here can agree on. Captain Pug Henry is standing on a hill overlooking Pearl Harbor a few days after the Japanese attack:
Victor Henry turned his face from the hideous sight to the indigo arch of the sky, where Venus and the brightest stars still burned: Sirius, Capella, Procyon, the old navigation aids. The familiar religious awe came over him, the sense of a Presence above this pitiful little earth. He could almost picture God the Father looking down with sad wonder at this mischief. In a world so rich and lovely, could his children find nothing better to do than to dig iron from the ground and work it into vast grotesque engines for blowing each other up? Yet this madness was the way of the world. He had given all his working years to it. Now he was about to risk his very life at it. Why?
Because the others did it, he thought. Because Abel's next-door neighbor was Cain. Because with all its rotten spots, the United States of America was not only his homeland but the hope of the world. Because if America's enemies dug up iron and made deadly engines of it, America had to do the same, and do it better, or die. Maybe the vicious circle would end with this first real world war. Maybe it would end with Christ's second coming. Maybe it would never end.
But he was living in 1941. Below in the brightening dawn lay his own sunken ship and his own destroyed fleet. The professional sailors and fliers who had done this thing, and done a damned smart job of it, had obeyed orders of politicians working with Hitler. Until the life was beaten out of that monster, the world could not move an inch toward a more sane existence. There was nothing to do now but win the war. So Victor Henry meditated as the Enterprise moved down channel in the sunrise and out to sea under the escort of destroyers and cruisers, taking his firstborn son into battle.
Anon 5:
Thank you for giving us that tragic and moving perspective. May we always keep those poignant words before us before we leap into the abyss of war:
“The familiar religious awe came over him, the sense of a Presence above this pitiful little earth. He could almost picture God the Father looking down with sad wonder at this mischief. In a world so rich and lovely, could his children find nothing better to do than to dig iron from the ground and work it into vast grotesque engines for blowing each other up?”
Moreover, these words make the point I have been trying to make but do so far more eloquently: The words describe God’s children in the twentieth-century West as much as, if indeed not more than, they describe His children anywhere else.
Given the choice you posit, I would make the same choice. However, there is cogent evidence to suggest that this may not have been the choice that was presented. Here I am addressing the European theater not the Pacific theater. Take a look at the BBC account again and tell me what you make of the points made there. To me, two points stand out. First, the tit for tat began as the result of a tragic error (perhaps inevitable at some point, but perhaps not and in any event underscoring the value of lines of communication that could have averted the horror but that did not exist during that era). Second, as the War progressed, the Allies descended ever further into the moral abyss of barbarism. (Meanwhile, and in parallel, the Nazis descended into the moral abyss of the Holocaust in the East.):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/area_bombing_01.shtml
But again, there is not getting around the fact that this was the “civilized West” doing this to itself. Shall we talk about the First World War now? Or perhaps 1618-1648 might be an appropriate topic for conversation as well?
Now, what have we learned from this dismal history, and how can we apply those lessons to address the challenges of our times? Gene and Templar seem to be of the “Shock and Awe” school of thought. Been there, done that. I would like to think that we could find a “better way.” And as you have reminded us, our Father would want us to find such a “better way” too, if at all possible. That is why just war doctrine regards war as a last resort (jus ad bellum), after all else has failed, not as a knee-jerk first resort. Such a reaction may satisfy the passions of our fallen natures, but it is not Catholic. And unless I am mistaken, the followers of this Blog claim to be very Catholic.
Thank you again, Anon 5, for helping to restore a measured, restrained, and properly spiritual tone to this conversation.
CCC: 2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes."
And: 2312 "The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."
Pin's assertion that the Beatitudes and the parables of the Kingdom apply exclusively to the eschaton or the life to come is wrong. The Reign of God will be fully established only after the return of Jesus, but that does not mean - that cannot mean - that we are excused from building up the Reign of God in this life.
"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."
To postpone to the next life the beatitude that comes from serving God faithfully in this life seems to be something more than an im-plicit denial of the power of grace to reform our hearts and, therby, our world.
A2,
Thanks for the compliment. But they're Wouk's words, not mine, I just happened to know them, and I know them because I think they're about the best commentary on twentieth century war from a Judeo-Christian perspective that I know.
If I'm understanding your bombing argument correctly, then I think you are using the wrong model by viewing bombing in isolation.
I think Templar tacitly concedes your :it wasn't tit-for-tat" point when he notes we carried out a strategic bombing campaign simply because we had the capability. And the concept of strategic bombing, as developed by Douhet and others before the war, by no means excluded civilian populations. Given the general level of savagery and the stakes involved, it doesn't matter who started it--at some point civilians were going to catch it in a big way. The Allies' use of area bombing was just one more step down the road of destroying the distinction between combatant and noncombatant that is a key component of modern warfare. That road began with the Levée en masse of 1793, proceeded on with Sherman's March, developed elaborately with civilian productivity in WWI, and culminated in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. And even Sherman could find American antecedents by looking to the Sullivan Expedition, ordered by our very own George Washington. All of this, we here should not carefully, is violative of the Catholic notion of the Pax Dei (a concept first enunciated in the 10th century to the effect that there are some people whom warriors simply do not fight).
But I think that tit-for-tat does apply on a larger scale. Hitler was, to all appearances, following Mackinder's playbook, and that playbook predicted the literal conquest of the entire earth. With stakes like that, it is only natural for the Allies to have used every weapon at their disposal in response to Axis aggression.
I'm afraid I despair of finding your "better way" in practice, and possibly in theory as well. If one party--and one party only--has determined to wage war, the other party has only the options of defense or submission. As destructive power has both a) grown more potent and b) grown more diffuse, there is no hope of keeping it out of the hands of irrational actors. To think otherwise, I argue, is to adopt a utopian dream that contradicts Catholic teaching.
Gene: on re-reading your rattlesnakes statement, I realized that I hadn't replied as clearly as I could.
You assume all Muslims are rattlesnakes. I'm here focusing my inquiry on whether that assumption's true. I do concede that an appreciable number of Muslims are rattlesnakes. That still leaves the causal connection unresolved. Are they rattlesnakes because they're Muslims, or not? And if they are, does that mean the Muslims who aren't rattlesnakes also aren't really Muslims?
Anon 5:
Thanks for the historical information, which underscores the West’s slide into barbarism from the Pax Dei over time. My central point all along has been for us to face the truth about ourselves – the good, the bad, and the ugly – and to bear this truth in mind as we judge others. This is not self-loathing as Templar would have it; it’s just being honest with ourselves. Such honesty gives us a clearer vision and may enable us to do better in the future, both with ourselves and with others. Indeed, isn’t this very Christian (planks and motes in eyes and all that).
Regarding the hoped for “better way,” you say that “If one party--and one party only--has determined to wage war, the other party has only the options of defense or submission.” That is, of course, true. But don’t we need to be very sure of the condition before we proceed to the choice you pose. You mention “irrational actors.” Again, don’t we need sufficient evidence of the assumed “irrationality” before we make that judgment? Making such judgments is the job of expert foreign policy analysts and diplomats, not the job of armchair observers such as myself (and I suspect most followers of this Blog) or ratings-hungry media pundits such as Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow.
We all remember Santayana’s aphorism that “[t]hose who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Our failure to learn from the experience of other countries in Iraq and Afghanistan is water under the bridge. But perhaps we can hope that we will learn from our own experiences there. And in terms of learning from the grander sweep of history, I once again recur to the father of modern American conservatism, Russell Kirk. It seems to me to be very difficult to explain him away as some self-loathing liberal appeaser. Here is his 1991 speech to the Heritage Foundation again (please see second half); I wish everyone would read it, because he calls for a return to the prudence and restraint in foreign policy displayed by Republicans during most of the twentieth century:
http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
The fact that most people I talk to have never even heard of Russell Kirk shows just how far the Republican Party has departed from its true roots in the area of foreign policy in favor of the policies advocated by the neoconservatives, of whom Kirk famously said: “Often clever but seldom wise.” His prediction of “blowback” is uncannily accurate and his chilling reminder about 1984 is a powerful call to resistance against manipulation.
Gene:
In support of Anon 5, I hate to point out the obvious but Muslims are not in fact rattlesnakes; they are fellow human beings. The risk in using such metaphors is that it de-humanizes the other, in this case approximately 1.7 billion others. That is the kind of labeling I was challenging as a short cut for thought. Thoughtful labeling is something quite different. Of course, some Muslims in other parts of the world engage in similar inappropriate labeling of Americans.
We could certainly use appropriate words to describe the human qualities of which we disapprove in particular individuals or groups of individuals, and perhaps even thoughtfully applied animal metaphors sometimes, but reflexively reductionist animal metaphors are not especially helpful when applied to an entire race or religion. I wonder what the Holy Father would say about such language.
Anon 5: Regarding what is “really Muslim,” I refer again to the book and article I mentioned in my comment to Templar. First, the book: “Understanding Islamic Law (Sharia)” by Raj Bhala (who is Catholic BTW), published in 2011:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Islamic-Law-Sharia-Bhala/dp/B0053DJ9I8
Now the article (for a shorter treatment):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
"War is Hell." Williams T. Sherman
You guys are over-analyzing...
Ignotus, Go back to sleep. No one is arguing that we should not try to live the Christian life in this life.
A2,
I don't share to a very large degree in your deference to our foreign policy specialists. They've screwed up enough times that I simply cannot defer to them on the basis that they know how to proceed better than I do. The Spanish-American War and Vietnam come to mind as examples.
This is not to say that I myself have an easy answer, or any answer at all. I do believe that there are Islamic forces who would be happy to destroy us. (Whether there's a causal link between that hostility and the religion of Islam is another question.) In light of that, I think the questions are purely pragmatic. Can we identify them? Will using force against them increase our own security? Will failing to proceed against them, oradopting the tone of appeasement that has sometimes been heard from the Obama government, reduce the danger? Regarding the final question, at least, I believe the answer to be "no."
Anon 5:
I overlooked your point about Hitler, Mackinder, and world domination. I know you say “to all appearances,” which admits the possibility that reality was different. Indeed, with your expertise in history, I am sure you know better than I do that historians are divided on the reality of Hitler’s true ambitions in this respect. Moreover, we need to know more about who is perceiving and evaluating the “appearances.”
But, even if Hitler did have those ambitions, why does it mean we can throw just war doctrine out of the window? Was there really no alternative to stopping the man than to commit mass extermination of civilians (and, of course, the occasional strafing of lone women like my mother just for fun)?
On both of these points, Pat Buchanan, another self-loathing liberal who really hates the West as I am sure everyone has noticed, thinks otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War
Please understand me here. I am not saying Buchanan is necessarily correct (see the scathing reviews as well as favorable ones in the end section). However, he has raised legitimate questions that deserve serious consideration. And again, either way, these were all actions of the West. Hitler may indeed have been a megalomaniac hell-bent on world domination, but we produced him. We need to ask why and how that was possible.
And from those readers who think I protest too much on this point, I beg their understanding and forgiveness. I grew up hearing about the horrors of allied bombing from someone who experienced them first hand. I think it is difficult for most Americans to appreciate the utter devastation and carnage wrought on the homelands in Europe, having not experienced such on their own since the mid-nineteenth century. But I do understand how those particular horrors could occur. What I cannot yet understand is how the Nazi Holocaust could occur. How supposedly “civilized” men could perpetrate such utterly despicable evil is unfathomable to me.
Anon 5:
Regarding foreign policy specialists, what I said was that “Making such judgments [about whether the other party has decided to wage war and whether various actors are “irrational”] is the job of expert foreign policy analysts and diplomats, not the job of armchair observers such as myself (and I suspect most followers of this Blog) or ratings-hungry media pundits such as Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow.” I stand by that statement while recognizing that sometimes the judgments of foreign policy specialists may be mistaken. However, with the possible exception of your good self, on these two matters at least I believe that they are generally in a position to make better judgments than we are because they have access to much more relevant information then we do.
Regarding what politicians do with that information, what they say the foreign policy specialists have told them, and how they may “doctor” that information to manipulate the public. . . . Now that may be a different matter altogether.
Gene, I thought the entire body of Catholic doctrine represented an analysis of how to avoid Hell. Analyzing how to avoid War and its attendant evils, then, would seem to fit right in.
When we were preparing for the Normandy invasion, Churchill and the Allied Generals were hesitant to bomb the French coast and countryside and to use naval bombardment in a "blanket" manner. They discussed this with the French strategists, and the French said that the people understood the horrors to come and were willing to endure it to get rid of the Germans.
Anon 2, you say "we" produced Hitler. Do you mean Western Culture, the United States, or you and I? Whatever you mean, it is too glib. The collective hiastorical guilt stuff can go too far...I consider it a form of liberal handwringing. You really need to go out and get in a fist fight ot two...LOL!
Gene,
You have focused my attention on an aspect of the allied bombing that I had not really considered before. My father was part of the Normandy invasion and involved in the liberation of Le Havre, for example. I have always assumed that the French greeted the Allies as liberators. The following discussion, while certainly not definitive, is suggestive that once again this may be at least partly a myth (with a small ‘m,’ not capital ‘M’):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Normandy
Thanks for drawing my attention to an aspect of the bombing that may make my point even stronger (I need to do further research on this aspect, though – one short Wikipedia article is not enough, and I wish my father were still alive so I could ask him what he knows about this aspect). I assume the French strategists you refer to are The Free French who participated in the Normandy Invasion.
The “We” I am referring to is of course Western Civilization. Anon 5 has already chronicled the descent into barbarism over the centuries that led to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in an earlier comment on this thread. In my view, every effort should have been made to prohibit the targeting of civilians as part of the laws of war once the technology of air power had been developed and to reach international agreement on that point, much like we have tried to do with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction since the end of the War. (At least we have learned something from our atrocious excesses.) Perhaps Western Civilization needed to endure yet more barbarity before it could see the point clearly enough.
Please stop calling me a liberal, Gene. It is just as tiresome to hear this kind of thoughtless labeling now as it was when the Bush Administration and its aplogist pundits in the media sought to characterize all those opposed to the Iraq War as “liberals.” Pat Buchanan a “liberal.”? Russell Kirk a “liberal” for his opposition to the first Iraq War? And let’s not forget Sam Nunn, whose career as a serious contender in politics was probably ended by his opposition to the latter. Liberals all of them, as of course was Saint Augustine and all those in the Catholic just war tradition. Give me a break (Nunn is especially interesting because, conservative though he clearly is, he endorsed Obama in 2008).
I am afraid that you are just going to have to get used to dealing with “nuance,” Gene, although I do realize how inconvenient facts can be sometimes. And you are going to have to get used to the fact that the Catholic Church and the Pope do not answer to Reince Priebus or Rush Limbaugh any more than they answer to Barack Obama and Kathleen Sibeleus.
Anon 2, referring to Augustine as a "liberal," as in modern usage, is absurd. I think the "history" you are citing is, indeed, revisionist. Once again, it has been popular for some decades, to paint the US and the Allies as evil, corrupt, heartless, etc. It is part and parcel of the egalitarian, cultural/historical equivalence game by which you have been co-opted. I've seen the pics and films of all those French and Dutch people out in the streets celebrating, hugging soldiers, and throwing flowers. Nah, they didn't see us as liberators.
You may not be a liberal, but you wring your hands alot over our involovement in that war. I am sorry your parents were victims of the bombing. My father was at Normandy (2nd Infantsry Div.), my uncles were Marines at Tarawa, Okinawa, and one was a P-47 pilot. I grew up listening to their stories and looking at the pictures they brought back. My Dad hated the Germans until the day he died, and my uncles hated the Japanese equally. It was a righteous hatred, based upon things they saw and experienced from barbarous and evil nations. The citizens of these nations, in one way or another, supported these governments. You cannot win a war without fighting it all the way. Civilians get killed and there is a fringe of soldiers, even in a righteous cause, who go over the edge and violate what we like to call "the rules of war," which in itself is a sort of oxymoron. I have zero patience with people who want to suggest that America was just as evil as the Axis or that we are somehow guilty of the same level of inhumanity. The real disgust is that folks like you who are constantly playing who, as the quote goes, "sleep peacfully in their beds because rough men stand ready in the dark to do violence on their behalf." God bless those rough men...God help the rest of you.
Anon 2, my last statement in my last post was garbled. It should read: "The real disgust is with people like you who are constantly playing Hamlet with history and who (as the quote goes), "sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand readyt in the dark to do violence on their behalf." God bless those rough men and God help the rest of you.
Yes, Gene, God bless those rough men. And I for one am appalled at how poorly we treat our veterans in this country. They are heroes whom we should honor in every way possible (even if we may have opposed this or that war they have been asked to fight by blundering politicians who got us into it).
I am sorry that you do not appear to have understood at all what I have been saying about the causes and conduct of war and about the enemy within all of us, Christian and Muslim, and how our Lord and His Church on Earth is there to protect us from that enemy. The fault is probably mine, but you might want to go back and read carefully what I have said in my comments.
And for a wonderful movie that makes the points I am trying to make and that underscores the terrible complexity and perplexity involved in all this, I recommend “The Mission,” with Jeremy Irons and Robert de Niro. Perhaps you have seen it.
Gene, Here is a summary of the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_(1986_film)
Again, the movie says everything I have been trying to say, only much better.
This is not playing; it is deadly serious.
BTW, in my previous comment, "is" should be "are" in the second paragraph.
Gene,
It is worth making another point about your remarks.
Understandably, you present a very American-centered view of these issues. I do not blame you for that. As I said, it is very understandable given the fact that for over 150 years American civilians have NEVER experienced the kind of devastation and carnage on the homeland that Europeans have suffered on theirs. Pearl Harbor does not really count. 9/11 gave a taste but just a small one. That is why your comment that people like me can sleep peacefully because of what the rough men do is so ironic, and you cannot even see the irony. During the Second World War sleeping peacefully is precisely what civilians in Europe could NOT do – on either side – because of what the rough men do.
Why do you think the Europeans created the European Community? It was precisely to make sure that such insanity could never happen again (NATO was vital, too, of course). The First World War was horrible – mostly for the soldiers in the stupid trenches. But the Second World War brought the carnage directly to the civilian population. And then Europeans finally realized the barbarous depths to which our Western Civilization had descended (that and the Holocaust showed them). I often wonder if American attitudes to war would be different had virtually every city and town in the United States been left in utter ruins. What do YOU think? So, when you say “You cannot win a war without fighting it all the way. Civilians get killed”, who is really playing here? At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a wake- up call for America that, yes, it could actually happen here as well. Remember all those drills at school?
And regarding the Muslim protests and violence against our embassies and consulates, what do you and Templar say about all those who have demonstrated in Libya in favor of the United States and against the violence? Or about the vast majority of Muslims, even those in the Middle East, who have nothing to do with any of it? It’s time for our pandering politicians and media pundits to get smart and start playing chess instead of tiddlywinks (thankfully, some of them are actually trying to do that). Perhaps, then, the rough men will actually be spared the sacrifices we so irresponsibly impose upon them. But, should such efforts fail, then – and only then – will we need the rough men. And, as you suggest, then we will thank God for them.
In the meantime people such as those who made that stupid and fraudulent movie that sparked the protests are not exactly helping matters. I am sure you don’t approve when those on the Left abuse their First Amendment freedoms to mock religious sensibilities. I would hope you would not approve when others do so either, whichever religion they attack. Whatever happened to common decency? Just ask the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They will tell you.
I will leave you to your Euro-centric, revisionist, anti-American views on the subject. You wouldn't agree with my views on the UN, either. I think it is a ridiculous organization, totally useless, egalitarian, anti-American,and ineffectual. We need to kick them out of the country and raze that dumb building and build an amusement park or a collection center for Muslims to be deported.
Ah, I see you have found some new labels for me now that Liberal won’t work any longer: Eurocentric and anti-American. Strange, I thought my remarks were anti-European far more than they were anti-American, arguing how a European Civil War represented the nadir of the slide into barbarism by Western Civilization. I also explicitly stated that I found the anti-Americanism prevalent among so many Europeans nauseating and that it was sad how soon people forget history. Europe (including Britain of course) would have been in a pretty pickle if the United States had not rescued Europe from tyranny and helped put a stop to the insanity.
Perhaps I am anti-American because I dared to speak a truth about America not having experienced devastation and carnage on our homeland in the way that Europeans had on theirs and that the differences in those two experiences may have shaped attitudes to war. Or because I was critical of politicians who send our brave armed forces into war irresponsibly.
Or then again, perhaps I am anti-American because I am trying to bring my Catholic faith to bear on all these questions.
Or was it that I dared to suggest that we not idolize the First Amendment so that having a First Amendment right is an absolute defense to any argument that this right might have been exercised inappropriately.
Or because I suggested we should treat our brave veterans better than we do?
Perhaps you can help me out here, Gene. Just what exactly have I said that is anti-American?
It can’t be that I criticized something that someone is doing in America, can it? After all you do that all the time?
Is it then because I was not born here and therefore am not a “real” American like you? Yes, I am used to that one. But it will not stop me from participating in a conversation about what is in the best interests of OUR country and its people.
I do not mind that a good person such as yourself disagrees with me. We can agree to disagree, and the debate sharpens our thinking even if neither of us persuades the other. But please do not EVER call me anti-American again. Or a Liberal =).
Well, we'll leave it at your "Euro-centric" views, then. If you are not with us, in my opinion, you are against us. These are extreme times and they do not admit of detached contemplation or ponderously philosophical re-thinkings of America's heroic role in WW II.
Gene, Please reconcile these two statements for me:
My statement: “But it will not stop me from participating in a conversation about what is in the best interests of OUR country and its people.” (please note emphasis on the best interests of America).
Your statement: “Well, we'll leave it at your ‘Euro-centric’ views, then. If you are not with us, in my opinion, you are against us.”
Suggesting I am “against us” is just another way of saying “anti-American.” So, you have just found another way of saying what I asked you never to say again.
On the merits, perhaps your point is that what you call “detached contemplation or ponderously philosophical re-thinkings of America's heroic role in WW II” are “against” America because we cannot afford this in “extreme times.” However, my recognition of America’s heroic role in World War II surely can’t be what you have in mind as being “against” America. So, I am left with “detached contemplation,” and the only content I am able to give that is “what disagrees with Gene.” Ergo, we cannot disagree with Gene in extreme times. I feel safer already.
Oh, and can you also please explain to me just where our Catholic faith fits into your position? I know you are not a cafeteria Catholic, so I know it has to fit in somewhere. I am just not quite clear yet where exactly that is.
You can disagree all you like. I am merely expressing my opinion. Just what about my views needs reconciling with my Catholic Faith?
Post a Comment