http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2003/w031030.shtml

An Apocalyptic Style of Management

In the November 6 issue of the New York Review of Books, Joan Didion reflects on the influence of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels of Tim LaHaye, the evangelist, and Jerry B. Jenkins, his co-author. The 11th volume in the series, Armageddon: The Cosmic Battle of the Ages, has already made the New York Times bestseller list, and the whole series has sold a staggering 55 million books.

Miss Didion is particularly interested in President George W. Bush’s relation to the evangelical Protestant subculture that produced and avidly reads these books, and in whether he sees himself as playing a leading role in the drama of the end times. She is far from the first to deal with these questions. Bush is an evangelical Protestant and is sensitively attuned to that subculture; his speeches are full of its code words, subtly addressing his core constituency. He also seems to share its view of the Mideast, the divine plan for the state of Israel, and America’s special role in that plan. American foreign policy may now be under the sway of a sectarian interpretation of what Protestants call the Book of Revelation.

In the recent past, conservative Catholics have tended to regard fundamentalist Protestants as political allies. After all, these Christians share many moral convictions with Catholics, they oppose liberal secularism, and they fight against legal abortion, the normalization of sodomy, and other fashionable evils. It’s easy to feel that in important respects they are doing more to preserve Christian culture than our own bishops.

But an apocalyptic foreign policy is another matter. Bush has presented his policy, especially his War on Terrorism, in mostly secular terms that even liberals may accept. But to what extent is he actually motivated by different principles, which even many Christians might find alarming?

An apocalyptic style is common in modern politics, and it isn’t necessarily religious. Communism saw history as headed for a final showdown between the working classes and capitalism — how quaint that seems already! — and Hitler saw history as a grand racial struggle. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln shifted from the limited claims of his first inaugural, in which he merely denied the right of states to secede and was willing to leave slavery alone, to an apocalyptic interpretation of the Civil War as God’s punishment for the sin of slavery. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt justified American participation in two world wars as a moral crusade against evil itself, with vaguely religious overtones — much like Bush’s crusade against the “axis of evil.”

The trouble with this style of politics is that when you see your enemy as evil incarnate, it’s fatally easy to start seeing yourself as God’s (or history’s) agent. The natural result of such an outlook is to forget your own moral limitations, and to consider any means of fighting evil as justified by your supremely righteous ends. And you may wind up dropping atomic bombs on cities.

The Catholic tradition has been more modest — even, you might say, more earthy. War is always an evil, we don’t know when the end times will occur, and God’s plan is always a mystery to mere mortals. All we can do is try to keep warfare, when it comes, within civilized bounds. This view is the source of just war theory, which demands respect for the humanity of the enemy and the innocent.

In the Old Testament, God sometimes commands the Hebrews to exterminate their enemies, including women, children, and livestock. However we interpret these difficult passages, this approach is always congenial to rulers who see themselves as quasi-divine. And in time of war, it’s always tempting to throw off civilized restraints, especially those that are felt to “shackle” or “handcuff” our fighting men and expose them to even greater danger than they already face. We still hear the argument that the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than it took.

We don’t yet have a clear picture of the civilian suffering inflicted by the war on Iraq, and we may never have one. Not that the American people are demanding such an account; most of them have been willing to let the Bush administration do whatever it thinks necessary, more in a spirit of revenge for the 9/11 attacks than for the achievement of any particular war aims. After all, the argument goes, our leaders know more than we do; they are “competent” to decide what must be done, and we are in no position to second-guess them.

But this surrender of judgment amounts to a de facto divinization of the state. It does as it pleases, guided by an inscrutably superior wisdom, and we must simply obey. Needless to say, this attitude is remote from the republican theory of government of the founding fathers, who believed that the ruler must always be accountable to the people, not that the people should be subservient to the ruler.

In the case of President Bush, we don’t really know what he knows — or what, as a reader of the Bible, he thinks he knows. A foreign policy driven by a private interpretation of Scripture, never disclosed to the public, is as far from the republican standard as a foreign policy driven by bribery. It may be less sinful, but that’s beside the point. A man’s religion is his own business, but a ruler who thinks he has a divine mandate ought to tell the public about it. And there have been many intimations that Bush believes he has been specially anointed by Providence.

With all due respect for religion, Catholics should be skeptical of any ruler who thinks he has been singled out this way, particularly if he feels that his anointment releases him from the ordinary obligations of natural law. Americans, with their Calvinist roots, are only too prone to see themselves in terms of the ancient Hebrews — as, in Lincoln’s phrase, “an almost chosen people,” destined to rule the earth. Many other earthlings are chafing at this idea, and not just the reviled French earthlings.

If Bush has succumbed to a sort of faith-based arrogance, he is getting plenty of encouragement. Miss Didion cites a “religious broadcaster” who had heard the president speak in Nashville: “It seems as if he is on an agenda from God. The Scriptures say God is the one who appoints leaders. If he truly knows God, that would give him a special anointing.” Another agreed: “At certain times, at certain hours in our country, God has had a certain man to hear His testimony.”

To a headstrong man who combines rather simplistic religious convictions with enormous power, this kind of talk can be intoxicating. Bush is certainly a decisive and tenacious man, but he isn’t one to weigh alternatives or to question a course of action once he has decided on it. We should be grateful that he believes in Christ; but that isn’t enough to save a man from serious error. Otherwise, all Christians would be Catholics.

-- J Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), November 22, 2003

Answers

Of all the things in the world that we probably do have to worry about, I don't think this is one of them.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 22, 2003.

I tend to agree with you Mr. Fernandes. They do not seem to have an exit policy, so they are now bogged down, in a terrible mess.

The Protestants follow only the Jewish side of this, believing that to be biblical, This may well end up in WW3. I pray that it will not.

-- Andrew (moto@propo.com), November 22, 2003.

I tend to agree with Leon. I have a friend who is worried about such things. He brings up things like "Rothschild & the Capitalist Communist Conspiracy" or "The Bush Family and their illuminati Rituals". Alledged famous names linked to the Illuminati include the Roosevelts, Rothchilds, Fords, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. People talk about their secret financial investments within secret investments within secret investments.

Here's a recent article titled It's the Illuminati, Stupid! which takes the view of this being laughable, from a site called Blogcritics.org >>>

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/23/050212.php

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), November 22, 2003.

I, for one, worry not, for the Lord is with me.

As to WW3, well, oen day it will come, i has to. In a world of increasign tensions, clashes with the ast and west, aggitated by the wests decedance and slefishness, and the economic stuctgire of the world fluxuating, in addition to Islamic extremism, it will ahppen one day. Though I doibt that thid means automativclaly Bush is the AntiChrist or any other nonsence along these lines.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 22, 2003.

Strictly speaking we already fought and won WW3..it was called "the cold war" although it was "hot" in places like Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Africa, and Central America (how's that for a "world" at war?)

So now we're involved with another war of global scope in the "war on terror" which essentially involves a loose network of European, American and Asian nations on one side and a dozen or so totalitarian Islamofacist and Communist regimes on the other.

Neither side is a monolithic monster governed by a single leader or guided by a single belief or world-view. Both have 5th columns and traitors: most of the anti-war people in the West are actually ideological twins of the Islamo-facists and Communist dictators. They are not anti-war, just "anti-this-war". They are actually either Islamo-facists or Stalinist-Socialists - neither are in favor of democracy, internationally respected human rights, and Christianity in particular.

But there are sizable minorities of pro-human rights, democracy, and decency among these same Islamic and communist regimes.

One thing we need to keep clear of - as Catholics - is having an alternative option when making moral judgments about American foreign policy or Bush's strategic vision. If we think he's wrong, then we must obviously know what the good is that he's missing right?

What exactly is the Church FOR (as opposed to against)? If you think Catholicism as such cannot morally accept Bush's foreign or domestic "agenda" then you'd better state why you think so and back it up with offically published documents. Of course the Holy See has to be against war...but past statements with respect to wars in Africa and the Balkans referenced principled arguments IN FAVOR of armed intervention in states for humanitarian reasons... reasons that based on those Papal and other pronouncements would validate any invasion of Iraq but which were strangely missing...

Instead we had prelates simply saying "no" to war, yes to continued "inspections" and the status quo irrespective of actual facts. If they had other motives and reasons for objecting to Bush and American foreign policy they certainly did not publish them.

My read on things, based on what I know from Catholic encyclicals, the Catechism, theology and philosophy, is that the Bush administration is the first "Catholic" one in American history.

His opponents almost NEVER quote him or his policy positions when attacking or claiming he's immoral, wrong, an idiot, dangerous, etc. AND they almost never provide an alternative set of actions to confront the circumstances - other than to say "all peace and harmony and love would instantly break out if only WE had power".

Thus Liberals claim "Bush is simpleminded" without proving it! Ad hominem accusations don't prove anything. While acting as absolute dogmatists sure that THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, they react angrily to the supposed "confidence in being right Bush exhibits".

What serious error has he embraced in the Pro-life cause? What serious error has he embraced in his budget? His tax-cut? His desire to privatise parts of Medicare and Social Security? His promotion of federal funding for Faith-based initiatives? How dangerous is his desire to protect marriage from social engineering courts?

What serious error has he embraced by going through the United Nations and then acting in conjuncting with 42 other nations when invading Afganistan or Iraq? The US has never acted "unilaterally" - and never exhibted a "go-it-alone" approach during this Presidency, whereas Bill Clinton invaded Haiti alone...with not a peep from the peace-nik crowd.

What dangerous precedent has Bush launched in acting without the Security Council's blessing? The Korean war was fought because the Soviet ambassador wasn't there when they took the vote so couldn't veto it! Rwanda's genocide was not stopped because the Tutsi delegation just so happened to be one of the rotating members of the security council at the time and vetoed (with France) any action! So much for UN Moral Authority! Kosovo was fought by Bill Clinton despite no UN Security council vote... yet we are to believe that Bush crossed some moral Rubicon by invading Iraq with the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Denmark and a host of smaller countries?

Or since when as "the international community" been reduced to France, Germany, Russia and China? When has the Vatican said that those nations hold such moral authority that their veto means anything?

Look at all the accusations of "inconsistency" the Bush team gets with respect to handling North Korea within a "frame-work of 4 powers: US, China, Japan, and Russia? He is not "going it alone" because Korea is a different situation and circumstance than Afganistan or Iraq...yet our truly simple-minded liberals only see this difference as an "inconsistent policy"! AMAZING!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 24, 2003.

At least 17 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq; Army seeks answers Rebecca Suell wants answers, and not the ones the U.S. Army is giving her.

George Bush wants to save Iraq, and cause this kind of grief at home. It is easy to send another's lovd one out to die, isn't it?

-- Brent Sherwood (Brent54@yahoo.com), November 25, 2003.

There were 250,000 soldiers and sailors involved in the war, and currently there are about 130,000 still there. Given those numbers, and knowing that there is an average of 12 suicides per 100,000 in the general US population, it is not a crisis that 17 men in a highly stressful environment, with half their countrymen seriously debating the legality of the war, the justice of the cause, and the future option of pulling out-leaving all their efforts and sacrifices in the dust...would kill themselves.

Obviously suicide is always a tragedy. But if 12 out of 100,000 people kill themselves STATESIDE... you have to wonder whether being in Iraq itself is the problem or whether the Left's incessant collusion with their enemies is the prime stressor they are suffering.

After all, if you join the army to fight wars, and go liberate a nation but then have to read daily anti-US rhetoric coming from pominent and popular Americans...who are calling you and your efforts "war crimes", who claim your "liberation" is really a "land- grab for oil" and who violently call for your withdrawl before hostilities are finished.... wouldn't you be depressed?

I don't see this figure as an AHA! sign that Bush is an idiot or his foreign policy in Iraq is doomed to failure. I see it as proof that the Left is undermining morale and this has deadly effects on our troops - as it did in Vietnam.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 26, 2003.

Many people are misinformed about the motives for the Iraq war. Here is a link which describes the intellectual antecedents of the strategists behind the Iraq war.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1189

The Weird Men Behind George W Bush's War

-- J Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

Joe as ever just trying to balance up the ledge sheet, I think the moderator should delete this entire thread but hes adverse to such things so here goes. This forum is no place for political grandstanding even if the vast majority of participants clearly agree with Joe..

“Strictly speaking we already fought and won WW3..it was called "the cold war" although it was "hot" in places like Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Africa, and Central America (how's that for a "world" at war?)”

>>>>>”Strictly speaking” the Cold War is not considered WW3. Strictly speaking the cold war is exactly that, a war with no direct fighting bewteen countries involved. The fact that these hot wars you mentioned contained in some cases similar ideological cashes that may have contributed (to wildly differing degrees in each war) does not allow you to broadly unite them together as WW3. Its simplistic and misleading to do so.

“So now we're involved with another war of global scope in the "war on terror" which essentially involves a loose network of European, American and Asian nations on one side and a dozen or so totalitarian Islamofacist and Communist regimes on the other.”

>>>Herein lies the crux of Joes/Republican war mongers problems. They view this war on terror as a war between nations. A clear diving line between “good and evil”, “us and them”, “with us or against us” etc etc.. Americans especially of the Bushs bread and butter -the Bible Belt trailer park variety, lap up this sort of drivel up, especially when its delivered in a barely literate Texas drawl like a sorry B grade Western. Sadly its not that simple, this is nothing to do with communism. A raghead is a raghead, whether theyre Iraqi Palestinian , Jordanian or Saudi, to some Americans, indeed most Americans according to polling believed the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi!

The fact of the matter is that America number 1 “ALLY and FRIEND” in the middle east Saudi Arabia is the most fertile breeding ground for terrorists and these groups receive cover and protection by the corrupt Saudis. Its also convient to remeber that the US was responsible for ensuring Saddam remianed in power and helped stock his chemical weapon arsenal when they wanted to use him to gight Islamic fundamentalism(Iraq is not fundmentalist but a moderate secular state albiet formerly ruled by a brutual dictator).

“Neither side is a monolithic monster governed by a single leader or guided by a single belief or world-view. Both have 5th columns and traitors: most of the anti-war people in the West are actually ideological twins of the Islamo-facists and Communist dictators. They are not anti-war, just "anti-this-war".”

>>>This is absurd,Im sorry but it is ablsoute bunk. The Vatican is fascist? The universal voice of the Bishops of the worls a fascist/commie? The Pope is a fascist/commie? Outside a tiny group of republican Americans the voices of lay Catholics both in America and around the world are fascist/commie? I could go on listing every group religious and political and every country who was opposed to this war but you get the idea. The fact is the vast majority of the free world and the entire Communist/ Muslim world believes American did the wrong thing. Sure American money/free trade deals bought a few countries on board to the Caolition of the killing but it was small and very weakly supported by those in it. . If you don’t agree with Pope Bush then you must be a pinko or a nazi according to Joe. Total bunk, but read on it gets worse, much worse .

“ They are actually either Islamo-facists or Stalinist-Socialists!!!!!!!!!(oh mercy) - neither are in favor of democracy, internationally respected human rights, and Christianity in particular.But there are sizable minorities of pro-human rights, democracy, and decency among these same Islamic and communist regimes.

>>>Again generalized bunkum, Joes analysis is about as subtle as a steel tariff.

“One thing we need to keep clear of - as Catholics - is having an alternative option when making moral judgments about American foreign policy or Bush's strategic vision. If we think he's wrong, then we must obviously know what the good is that he's missing right?

What exactly is the Church FOR (as opposed to against)? If you think Catholicism as such cannot morally accept Bush's foreign or domestic "agenda" then you'd better state why you think so and back it up with offically published documents. Of course the Holy See has to be against war...but past statements with respect to wars in Africa and the Balkans referenced principled arguments IN FAVOR of armed intervention in states for humanitarian reasons... reasons that based on those Papal and other pronouncements would validate any invasion of Iraq but which were strangely missing...

Instead we had prelates simply saying "no" to war, yes to continued "inspections" and the status quo irrespective of actual facts. If they had other motives and reasons for objecting to Bush and American foreign policy they certainly did not publish them.”

>>>This is more bunkum, the war want fought for "humanitarian reasons" now, and Joe offers us a flase choice between alternatives while second guessing the Vatican. The Vatican is not consistent he squeals desperatley trying to justify his position. Anyone who understands the Catholic positon on each of these indidivual wars will see the Church acted in the right way, its not as simplistic as Joe makes out. Lets not speculate on the possible reasons such as oil, political power in the region, etc etc but rather examine the reason presented to the world, to the united Nations which was rejected and we now all know was a lie. The immediate clear and present danger posed by WMD. Lies Lies Lies or more simply bunkum.

WMD was the sole reason given for the war on Iraq, it has nothing to do with humanitarianism or kindness and goodwill. Every political science student knows the only reason for foreign policy is self interest and it was considered in Americas self interest to do this MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!. That’s the truth of the matter, and if I was not a Catholic and believed in only in selfishness money power and greed then Id have to say such a war looks pretty good.Its nothing about doing the right thing but all about doing WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA. Am I happy that Saddams gone? -you bet I am but Catholic morality demands we loook at more than just the ends justifying the means, and Catholic Bishops and theologians the world over almost universally agree (except fr a group of right wing republicnas) that this war was not “just” under Catholic just war theory.

Joes view of the morality of the war counts for__________( zilch, zero zip). He’s simply not qualified to pass comment, much less judge the actions of the Worlds bishops, the Vatican and the Pope.

“My read on things, based on what I know from Catholic encyclicals, the Catechism, theology and philosophy, is that the Bush administration is the first "Catholic" one in American history.”

>>>Who would have guessed? Intresting and thanks for giving your call but as I said on your view it counts for sweet…

“His opponents almost NEVER quote him or his policy positions when attacking or claiming he's immoral, wrong, an idiot, dangerous, etc. AND they almost never provide an alternative set of actions to confront the circumstances - other than to say "all peace and harmony and love would instantly break out if only WE had power".

>>>>No Joe this is more bunkum you know very well that I and any rational objective God fearing Catholic can make a perfectly justified argument using Catholic traditon and the just war theory to dismiss his “utilitariansim” and “pragmatic realism” as immoral. Indeed what I think about Bush personally is irrelevant even if I do believe he is "immoral, wrong, an idiot, dangerous, etc" in regard to THIS ISSUE.

"Thus Liberals claim "Bush is simpleminded" without proving it! Ad hominem accusations don't prove anything. While acting as absolute dogmatists sure that THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, they react angrily to the supposed "confidence in being right Bush exhibits". What serious error has he embraced in the Pro-life cause? What serious error has he embraced in his budget? His tax-cut? His desire to privatise parts of Medicare and Social Security? His promotion of federal funding for Faith-based initiatives? How dangerous is his desire to protect marriage from social engineering courts?"

>>>>Again not relevant but nice try, I think the evidence of Bushs intellect is proved everytime he opens his mouth but its never been something Ive based my own argumets on, neither any of the argument Ive read about the war in Iraq. I mean how stupid can he be, he was a drunken cole snorting dope smoking party frat boy, who doged a war or two, botched up any number of business his daddy set him up in and almost lost an election. But who am I to judge, hes the most powerful man in the wolrd! Lord help us. I dont hate Bush but I laugh at AMericans elevation of their President into a demi God. Respect for positon is one thing but the fanatical patriotism towards a politican is disturbing to any noraml human being. ALl politicans are corrupt, its parto f the trade off process of politics, its a fact you cant dispute, deal with it andput your faith where its deserved. Im sure Bush like all American Presidents has done some great and moral things in keeping with Catholic morality I couldn’t say nor do I especially care about your social welfare system. The fact is that this war in Iraq wasn’t one of them.

AT the end of the day if you disagree with a church judgement on this war I agree it may not be infallible( it may well be, thats disputible). WHat is clear is that Catholics unless very highly qualified to do so cannot speak out publically against such judgements, its simply not our place.

“What serious error has he embraced by going through the United Nations and then acting in conjuncting with 42 other nations when invading Afganistan or Iraq? The US has never acted "unilaterally" - and never exhibted a "go-it-alone" approach during this Presidency, whereas Bill Clinton invaded Haiti alone...with not a peep from the peace-nik crowd.”

>>>>>>More nonsense, man you’re unbelievable sometimes how can you say this stuff without bursting out laughing, perhaps you do. AS desperate as you are to tie Iraq to anything and everything it wont stick, ( Islamic fundamentalism, Communism, Stalin, Fascism, Vietnam, Korea Afganistan etc etc)- its simply untrue. Afghanistan war received the support of the world and I believe of the Church, it was a moral and just war. There was clear and direct link between the Taliban and 9/11, they in effect attacked your country, only pacificts(a perfectly acceptable Catholic tradition) and the real anti Americans would oppose this. Of course a link can be made to Iraq, a link could be made to just about any nation including your own. What next Bush declares war on the USA because it has harbored, aided terrorist groups!!?

“What dangerous precedent has Bush launched in acting without the Security Council's blessing?”

>>>Oh my. If you cant understand what dangerous precedent has been set here then we cannot dicuss this any further I refuse to believe youre that ignorant and brainwashed, imagine China instaead of the US did the same thing and then ask how the same question remebering all nation states care about is influense money power and control. Look Saddam wasn’t a nice guy the world is pleased to go but international law, morality and the UN means something to both the Church and the rest of the world. You just don’t get it.

“The Korean war was fought because the Soviet ambassador wasn't there when they took the vote so couldn't veto it! Rwanda's genocide was not stopped because the Tutsi delegation just so happened to be one of the rotating members of the security council at the time and vetoed (with France) any action! So much for UN Moral Authority! Kosovo was fought by Bill Clinton despite no UN Security council vote... yet we are to believe that Bush crossed some moral Rubicon by invading Iraq with the UK, Spain, Poland, Italy, Denmark and a host of smaller countries?

>>>More bunkum from the master of bunk, and Im all out of time to rebut all these lies and half truths. Talk about clutching at straws.Each one of these claims you make requires a detailed explanation but you’ve shown you like to keep it simple and uncomplicated, while spewing forth torrents of propaganda keep it black and white, right and wrong etc etc. What can a sane man do but keep his sense of humour and wonder why why why? There was no widespread suppport for the war in Iraq, very few countries offered combat troops while a minority of others under immense political and trade pressure were bullied into submission. Lets make no mistake to get offside with America damages every econmoy int he world, shes simply is a monster on the world stage dwarfing everyone.Look AMerica took this action for one simple reason. BECAUS AMERICA CAN. Its that simple, its what America wanted and its what it got, why becuase she can. Does ot make some countries jealous..you bet but it dosnt explain the real motivations behind the anti Iraqi war movement.

“Or since when as "the international community" been reduced to France, Germany, Russia and China? When has the Vatican said that those nations hold such moral authority that their veto means anything?”

>>>>Garbage the vast majority of the free world despite losing trade deals as in NZs case rejected Americas case for war. SO did the Vatican, they received the best moral arguments presented by republican theologians arguing for the war and they were rejected outright as much like your own nonsense: Bunkum. The Vatican doesn’t base its moral decisions on nation states so of course they don’t comment on the morality authority of the veto, its not what they use to determine the morality of a war.

“Look at all the accusations of "inconsistency" the Bush team gets with respect to handling North Korea within a "frame-work of 4 powers: US, China, Japan, and Russia? He is not "going it alone" because Korea is a different situation and circumstance than Afganistan or Iraq...yet our truly simple-minded liberals only see this difference as an "inconsistent policy"! AMAZING!”

>>>>The only thing that amazes me is …YOU! Mind bogling how you can present such bunkum without wetting yourself in laughter.You simply cannot make the sort of comparsions you attempt to draw between Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq ets etc “simple minded liberals” oh dear man the only thing that’s intellectually sloppy around here is your line of reasoning. No doubt this will be continued … Out of time tonight .

Peace Joe!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

Hi Kiwi,

I have to disagree with you. :-)

I do not think the moderator should delete the thread.

For a long time, every one who opposed this war was tagged "communist, socialist, radical liberal, fascist, abortionist etc." by the ACRC here in this forum (to use Chris Butler's acronym), some times in just one sentence.

I was called "radical liberal". You were called "drunk" and "pot smoker" (besides socialist radical liberal, of course). Chris Butler was called "a catholic recently converted who does nod understand our faith very well yet" (WOW!!! I guess this can be said about John Paul as well?)

For some strange reason, Joe refuses to comment the article published at the top of the thread. He goes on to repeat for the billionth time the same very poor arguments he has been using here for more than a year now. Why? Very simple: It would be hard to use these kinds of ad hominems against Sobran and The Wanderer. The only "reference" Joe makes to the text is the he believes that Bush is catholic (which is EXACTLY what these good old very very very conservative guy and newspaper are DENYING). The excellent article cautions Catholics NOT to identify so easily Bush with Catholicism, and gives sound theological and historical reasons for that, besides cautioning American catholics to resist the ever-present temptation of Calvinism (which some of our friends regularly yield to). Here are some relevant parts:

"The trouble with this style of politics is that when you see your enemy as evil incarnate, it’s fatally easy to start seeing yourself as God’s (or history’s) agent. The natural result of such an outlook is to forget your own moral limitations, and to consider any means of fighting evil as justified by your supremely righteous ends. And you may wind up dropping atomic bombs on cities. The Catholic tradition has been more modest (…)"

Then…

"But this surrender of judgment amounts to a de facto divinization of the state. It does as it pleases, guided by an inscrutably superior wisdom, and we must simply obey."

And…

"Catholics should be skeptical of any ruler who thinks he has been singled out this way, particularly if he feels that his anointment releases him from the ordinary obligations of natural law. Americans, with their Calvinist roots, are only too prone to see themselves in terms of the ancient Hebrews — as, in Lincoln’s phrase, “an almost chosen people,” destined to rule the earth."

And to crown:

"We should be grateful that he believes in Christ; but that isn’t enough to save a man from serious error. Otherwise, all Christians would be Catholics."

So, I think this thread should not be deleted. Here's a first class article from very conservative sources, which cannot be easily discarded with the usual ad hominems. The only path Joe had was to ignore the "caput" of the thread completely. Not without reason.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 27, 2003.

By the way, Kiwi, I discovered the reason why the Pope did not support the war.

It was a problem of poor convincement done by Bush's delegates. Indeed, a poor choice of catholic theological legate.

Bush selected Michael Novak to go to the Vatican and try to convince the guys in black and the guy in white there, that this was a "just war". The only theological argument he found to give them was that "this was the same war as the one in 1991, which was never declared finished" (the words are not literal, but Novak's arguments boiled down to only this).

This was a huge error. Bush should have hired Joe Stong and John Gecik for the job. They are so brilliant, and they have developed hundreds of incredibly solid arguments to justify this war. None, absolutely none, of these self-evident, brilliantly composed, magnificently crafted arguments, alas, were used by Novak. If only he had these guys as theologian-assistants… I am absolutely sure that, had Bush sent our friends here to convince the Pope, he would not only support the war but even bless the American Armies…

But the story is not over yet, thank God! In this never ending war "against terrorism" (?), Bush and his top aides are already listing new countries for "preemptive invasion", such as Syria and Iran. This time, I think we could alert Novak to hire our friends as their assistants. After all, Novak proved a very weak theologian, because he was not brilliant enough to concoct the fabulous arguments aired in this forum. He said nothing about "humanitarian invasion", "UNs moral illegitimacy", "access to secrets" and other pearls.

Joe and John's arguments are so fantastic and self-evident that it is amazing that no other serious (or even non-serious) catholic theologian in the world came up with them. This only proves one thing:

PEOPLE, DO NEVER MISS THIS PRIVILEGE!

We have two theological innovators here, people who are capable of thinking things that the best catholic theologians, virtually all bishops in the Word (who are so hard to agree in something), the Vatican Curia and the Pope himself had never considered!

Can you all assess your privilege? Our friends here will assist Novak in the next time Bush wants to invade some country and needs to convince the Pope! They will be recognized with worldwide renown as "the guys who developed the 'preemptive just war theory"! Can you see?

Can you imagine that? In the future, in 40 years, we will be able to say to our grandchildren: "Kids, I am proud to tell you, I used to participate in an internet forum where two of today's most prominent catholic theologians used to air their superior wisdom. Sometimes, they even exchanged postings with ME! Yeah, you know them, they developed the 'preemptive just war' theory, they were able to cast light over this issue, in a time when even the best catholic theologians who supported preemptive war were at pains to find arguments to convince the pope, the bishops, priests and laypeople and to advance our Most Holy Theology! You see, kids? Yeah, your own grandpa, I was lucky enough to know them (virtually) in a time when they were not so renowned!"

Yeah, we are really lucky men! :-)

God Bless!

p.s. By, the way, where are those them WMD?

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 27, 2003.

We had a Moderator who would have scratched these idiot words out. There are more ridiculous posts around; but a Catholic forum isn't where one had expected this. The Internet is paradise; an opportunity for unhealthy brains to carry disease to the masses. For instance Atila.

There is nothing he loves like burying the United States. It costs nothing; our country never punishes hate-mongers. Our land is the land of free speech. Atila lives in a quiet land, where criticism might lead him into deep problems, and nobody would bother to help him out. It's easier to cry out against Americans. No one defends the United States. He's SAFE. He also feels holier than an American Christian. Christians come in many good flavors, but Atila says the worst flavor is American. We love him anyway. We offer him our friendship even if he refuses it. He doesn't have any obligation; if he can't love us, why should he? All we are is sinners.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 28, 2003.

"Bush should have hired Joe Stong and John Gecik for the job."

If he had, we would have taken possession of Antarctica by now with only 1,500 casualties.

j/k. Kidding!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 28, 2003.

Gone are the days when Emerald had power to seduce the faithful. He hopes somehow to gain an advantage by kidsmanship. Just kiddud ya!

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 28, 2003.

haha, funny emerald.

actually, joe, john... if you get hired i want to come along too. i'll cut those casualties in half.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.

Dr. ATila thanks as always, I didnt read the orignal link or post. Outside those dissident right wing American Catholics with a guilty conscience no one can judge your words as "anti AMerican", although criticism of any kind is often dificult for "the choosen people" to humbly take on board. You once wrote you published a paper linking Max Webster's thoughts to the current administration can you email me this or is it on the net somewhere?

Youll note Gene didnt provide anything substantial to repsond to, his political thoughts have wavered consistently around your own name sakes position(Atilla the Hun).But everyone must have their say, as he says its a free world.

At his age, with the clock on final countdown, youd think he would conserve his energy to say something useful, informing , helpful, intelligent etc. Oh well, hes got a heart of gold, and we all love him to pieces, however for some things in life it just gets too late to learn. To parahprase someone else

"The sun is beginning to shine on me, but its not like the sun that used to be. The party's over, and there is less and less to say, Ive got new eyes and the real world looks so far away"

ps I read yet another UN resolution on Palestine is being ignored by Israel, only because of the influence of the excessive influence of the US Jewish lobby in forcing US UN representives to veto any reasonable just moral plan for a viable Palestinian STate that also secures Israels security. The entire world's security is being held to ransom by a small group of fanantical religious extremists. Remove the Jewish lobby's evil, immoral influence in US foriegn policy in the Middle East = delivering the biggest blow possible in fighting the "war on terror". But its much easier just to watch Fox news comfortably youre getting nothing but the truth and Arabs are all mad and dangerous terrorists. You wait Ill be called anti Jewish bigot amongst evrything else now. AS Gene might say "ho hum"!

Peace, Love and Undestanding!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

More turkey folks?

-- George Billy Bush (inspirational leader@heart warming phot op.com), November 28, 2003.

ha my spelling and html makes me the moron not dubbya gota try again

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

if thats a real picture, i think thats AWESOME.

how great that while our troops are deployed the commander in chief would take time to go and visit them on thanks giving... reminds me of stories about washington walking through valley forge on christmas before we were even a nation...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 28, 2003.

Paul thats exactly what the minds behind this propaganda gesture were hoping people would do, get all patriotic, what an inspiration he is, our brave leader serving his foot soldiers on the front line. If Bush was a real patriot (like his old man was) he would have been on the front line in Vietnam for a few tours. Maybe Im just a cynic and see this as just a calculating photo op for whats looking like a 1 term presidency(actually Ive got no idea about that, its just my imagination wandering, (hoping!)- when is the next election, who is the leading democrat candidate? I know nothing about your domestic politics!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

Kiwi, you know even less about human nature. Bush's visit to the troops is a sharing with them of holiday joy; when instead he could have remained comfortably at home with his family. We take Thanksgiving Day very seriously. For those young servicemen & women, his visit was a gesture of solidarity. A glimpse of home, with an unselfish executive; a man who knows how much they long for their families at holiday time. You, naturally, can't see past the obvious, which is his office. But he gave his companionship, however briefly as just their friend. That's why we love this president. He never puts on airs, he doesn't look down his nose at the common man. How terribly you misjudge him. You certainly ARE a cynic; unhappy when you could be at least charitable to your brothers.

As for the ''one- term'', Kiwi; let us wait & see. I'm betting George W is very re-electable since the pre-candidates about to challenge him are also decidedly cynical, and have trouble hiding it from the electorate. There isn't a leader in the bunch. And leadership is worth gold in the beginning of this new millennium. Anyone can make snide remarks about our country. We know that comes with the territory. Tell you what, Kiwi-- and relay this to all New Zealand: We are proud of our country. We are happy with our President and with our men & women in Iraq. They're courageous and self-sacrificing, while too many of our world's cynics are merely gutless and pusillanimous (a fifty-cent word for yellow).

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Hi Kiwi,

As you may have noticed, Gene's words towards me consisted exclusively in ad hominems, in which he managed to belittle me, my country, my faith and my intelligence. How Christian.

Such as you, I love Gene very dearly. We have been side-to-side many times in this forum, fielding the enemies of our beloved Church. However, alas, you are right. An old dog cannot learn some tricks anymore…

As someone else said:

"And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking And racing around to come up behind you again The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older And shorter of breath and one day closer to death."

He speaks about an old Moderator that I cannot figure out who may be. For a long time we had our great friend Chris Butler as Moderator and he surely would not delete my posts as idiot words. After all, Chris' position about this war was EXACTLY the same as mine and yours. So sad an old guy like Gene has as his only recourse to throw ad hominems at people, saying things that he knows nothing about or, if he knew, would make him a liar. For example, he said something about my not having the right of free speech in my Country, whereas if he used Google or cared to study a little, he would know that my Country is not only a Democracy but is probably more akin to free speech that the US, especially after the "Patriot Act", which made my countrymen very upset. Our local "FBI" has no right to tap phone lines or violate correspondence or emails without Judiciary consent, something that Bush's America sees for the first time in that great Country's history. However, alas, Gene thinks that only Americans have the right to be patriots.

Are American Catholics the worst flavor of Christians? Well, I am sure they are not. After all, almost all American Bishops (and their Episcopal Conference) followed our beloved Pope and opposed this war, to the dismay of those who call themselves Catholics but who think they can interpret Catholic doctrine better than the pope. If this is not Protestantism, I do not know what it may be. The same guys who spend tons of virtual ink here calling the Traditionalists "heretics" and "protestants" because they dare to interpret the Magisterium in defiance of the Pope, when it comes to issues where the Republican party is not in line with the Pope, well, they do exactly the same thing: they claim to be better interpreters of the Magisterium that the Pope and, you see, their own American Bishops (who, of course, as they think the same thing as me, are obviously all Anti-Americans). So good to have a foreigner upon whom you can throw all your resentment and your guilty conscience, when you do not have the courage to attack your countrymen who think the opposite of you… I would like to see Gene direct those words towards the Pope, the American Bishops and the Pope…

It is so sad to see these old people, as you say, wasting their time in a Catholic forum scandalizing our readers, opposing our Pope and making people believe that our Pope is a naïve and ignorant old man. I think that, being catholics, at a minimum I would expect them to silence if they disagree with the pope. If they really think that supporting this war is a question of opinion and that they are not bound to obey the pope, at least they should have the dignity to shut up. If they want to incense Pope Saint Bush, they could go to a political site, and not come here to make catholics think that our pope is an idiot. Their enormous effort to try (unsuccessfully, of course) to convince people that the pope is wrong is something that of course is not worthy of a catholic forum. Therefore, if there were something that should be deleted by the moderator, it would be exactly those posts by people who call themselves "orthodox catholics" but who spend hours and hours to ridicule the Head and Hierarchy of our Church.

Nevertheless, on the other hand, I would not be so harsh with them, Kiwi. They are Americans and they felled in the trap of identifying being pro-Bush with being Americans AND Catholics, which is exactly what Sobran's article cautions against (is Sobran Anti-American? Is "The Wanderer" Anti-American?). Of course their situation if much more difficult then ours, who can see all of this from the outside and with much more neutrality.

And with this I answer to your question: Yes, I have finished my article relating Weber's thought to this mess. Unfortunately, the article was written in Portuguese, and I have no time to translate it into English now. However, if you are able to read Spanish, I may send it to you via email and I am sure you will be able to understand 80-90% of it.

To summarize the article, I take Weber's concept of "autonomous rationalization of the different spheres of life". Weber, the most profound thinker who studied Western continuous move toward greater rationalization, from the Greeks onward, noticed that the different "spheres of life" have developed their own logic. That means that, according to the sphere you are dealing with, you rationally come to conclusions that collide with other rationalizations made in another sphere.

Let me give an example, however stupid.

Here in Brazil, in our metropolitan areas, it is very dangerous to stop at a traffic light at late night. It is similar to what happened in New York before Giulliani (A Republican Abortionist, as is Bloomberg, lest someone be deluded that to be a Republican is to be a Catholic saint).

Therefore, you have here two different spheres. From the point of view of strict legality, it is most rational to stop at every red traffic light and expect it to turn green. However, if you are a paterfamilias, and if you consider the risk of being assaulted and killed for having stopped at that traffic light, it is more rational to go on and ignore the red light, after carefully looking if no pedestrian or car is coming from the other street.

In his "Essays on the Sociology of Religion", he develops this idea fully, and one of the most important rationality conflicts that he develops is exactly the opposition between the State Logic and its ethics (where Patriotism belongs) and Religious Logic and its ethics. The most important clash, he says, is about what to think about War (this is profoundly linked to Weber's theory about the opposition between the "ethics of conviction" and the "ethics of responsibility"). Reading this text, you cannot help thinking that Weber was an amazing prophet. He describes the opposition between the two logics in such a way that the current reader thinks he is referring to the conflict between the Vatican and Bush's administration (not "America", the pope never had any conflict with America as a country, and neither did I).

Weber also says that, although the rationality of different spheres develops independently, the conflicts between them occur in individual people (otherwise this conflict would be what we call in philosophy a "reification"). That is, people subjected for some reason to more than one conflicting spheres will be at pains to solve this conflict.

Indeed, this is exactly what is happening here. American Catholics, faced with the conflict between Patriotism and Catholicism, as offered by their two conflicting leaders (Bush and the Pope), had to find their way out and choose. Many (if not most) American Catholics decided to be more Catholic than American (as is the case of American Bishops and, among us, Chris Butler – hardly a radical leftist liberal; and it seems that this was also the choice of Sobran). Others, like Joe, John, Gene and Hollis, decided that the solution was to be more American than Catholic, as is obvious from their continuous postings in this forum.

The irony of all this is that the idea that American Catholics tend to distort their Catholic faith with the Calvinistic roots of American culture was first posed to me by an article in Crisis Magazine. Crisis is a conservative and orthodox Catholic American magazine, but which flirts with republicanism more often that not – indeed, I am a subscriber of their email newsletter and Deal Hudson, the editor, is almost always marvelous; but when war came, he was one of the "not infallible" team about our popes "personal opinions".

To top that irony, here comes Mr. Fernandes and posts an article from an even more conservative source (The Wanderer) that confirms that view: Calvinism is such a strong intellectual and ideological force in the US that can make even catholics believe in such absurd as the infallibility of an elected president.

You said: "The entire world's security is being held to ransom by a small group of fanatical religious extremists."

How right you are!

We are held to ransom by several different small groups of fanatical religious extremists! Let's list them:

- Muslim extremists, like Osama and his Saudi supporters (who are economically supported by the US, by the way)

- Hindu extremists, who are making new catholic martyrs in India and menacing a new Nuclear War against the Muslim extremists in Pakistan (again, both of them, supported by US current foreign office)

- Jewish extremists, who happen to be more radically right wing than Sharon (this is incredible, but there are Jewish leaders who think that Sharon is "weak" against Palestinians, and that he should go and get that Great Israel they long for). Again, Jewish extremism is supported by Bush's foreign policy.

- Protestant extremists, among who Bush himself is the most evident exponent (see the opening article)

- Finally, catholic extremists like Gene, Joe and John, who think that to obey a protestant and to deny obedience to the pope is a very good thing. I would include here Opus Dei, of which is a member the Spanish Minister of Defense, who, after the pope had explicitly opposed the war, contradicted him and supported Spain's support for Bush's war.

To finish, and referring to the social/economic/international politics views Joe proposes (and you wisely ignored, as they were simple diversion tactics), I would like to list some Magisterial documents that some of our "most orthodox" friends obviously never have read:

From Leo XIII: Rerum Novarum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l- xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

From Benedict XV: Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l- xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

From Pius XI:

Quadragesimo Anno: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Divini Redemptoris: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html From John XXIII:

Pacem in Terris: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_ j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

Mater et Magistra: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_ j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html

From the Vatican II Council:

Gaudium et Spes: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documen ts/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

From Paul VI:

Populorum Progressio: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

From John Paul II:

Laborem Exercens: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0217/_INDEX.HTM

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0223/_INDEX.HTM

Centesimus Annus: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0214/_INDEX.HTM

Pascendi, Humani Generis, Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae are GREAT, but they are NOT the only ones our popes have released. In summa, it is very sad that people like you and me may be accused by "orthodox catholics" of whatever crimes, when the fact is that they spend hours scandalizing real catholics here in this site, ridiculing our pope and making him seem an idiot. The Catholic Church, for them, is only as good as it confirms the Republican Party ideology (which has, of course, many things in common with our faith, but is far from being IDENTICAL to it).

Catholicism is much more than political conservativeness. However, this forum makes clear that many people think that Catholicism is a dispute to see who is the most political or ideological conservative. The fact that this forum has become primarily a space of debate between Traditionalists (like my friend Emerald), schismatics and very right wing catholics is evidence of that.

I think this is very very sad. That is why, today, I only read the forum, very rarely wishing to participate in writing.

I would not respond to this thread. I only did so to support my dear friend Kiwi. However, I have come to think that this forum is becoming day after day a most irrelevant place. Those who claim to be "orthodox catholics" are so ruthless and lacking of charity that it makes me sick. It seems that the essence of Catholicism is to go on the street calling names to people who are not "orthodox", calling them "heretics" and condemning them to hell beforewards. As if Our Lord were not that stupid man who was dumb enough to sit and eat with sinners, who told everybody to "throw the first stone he who was free of sin", who said "not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who follows my words". And his words were of understanding, healing and forgiveness.

However, the "catholics" in this forum seem to think that to follow Christ is to distribute condemning decrees to everybody. I think this is exactly what Christ called pharisaism. No one of us is capable of knowing the hearts of those we deal with. If this is difficult in person, much less in a virtual setting. I do not condemn Americans who despise the pope, because I know that the conflict between patriotism and our faith may be tough. At the same time, I do not condemn those people who think that our current liturgy is a mess (and not a Mass). I do not know their reasons, their upbringing, and their motivations. God only knows our hearts. It is not only sound theology, but also literal evangelical words: " Do not judge and you will not be judged". How can a Catholic judge the inner conscience of another person? How could I say "someone is sinning and is going to hell"? This is not only arrogant, it is heretic!

The most I can say is that some behavior is objectively wrong, but NEVER has the Church given the laity the power to judge human behavior. Only the priest confessor can do that, and only in confession. How, then, can people in this forum say things like "You are going to Hell"? This is heresy! I will not contradict myself and say that these people are sinning, but I may say that this is objectively wrong. I strongly disagree with Joe, John and Gene about this war, as I disagree with Isabel and others about Liturgy and the necessary assent to Vatican II. But I will never condemn anyone of them. Who am I to know? How can I be so arrogant as to say that they will go to Hell because of that? It is much more probable that I am the one going to Hell if I pharisaically think I have the right to say who is or is not going to Hell (after all, it was Our Lord who told us not to judge).

Ok, this was a wild detour, but I think I expressed my ideas for a long time to come.

God bless us all!

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 29, 2003.

From the man who lives for a game of serve and volley he declares Im "uncharitble" to criticise this "misunderstood" man whom he "loves" like a brother.

Mr Bush and AMerica generally is outside the rules of tennis you see, pre destined and untouchable in the best Calvinist tradition. Oh well, we've never agreed on politics, no biggie to me , to continue to offer another perspective in this forum will always end in lump in the throat, irrational chest thumping, blind tearful emotional responses as above. My country right or wrong.

If you think I hold anything personally against AMerican people or the brave troops only doing their job I find that very sad indeed.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Atila thanks we posted at the same time, thanks brilliant as always. Gne is a stubborn old mule sometimes, he wont grow, because that means change and its much too long in the tooth for that.Sorry I cant read Spanish but I can put it through an online translator and would love to read it if you could mail it to me.

God Bless you Sir

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Ok Kiwi, I'll sent it to you, but I caution you that "tradutore traditore", and that is most true about electronic translators. If you can find someone in NZ who can read Portuguese or at least Spanish I would be much more comfortable.

Now, Gene, let's play volley.

What do you think about Sobran's article, a very CONSERVATIVE, AMERICAN thinker?

Sobran says that Bush is far, very far, from being anything like a Catholic.

Sobran is Catholic.

Sobran is American.

Sobran is conservative.

Sobran is no liberal, no Democrat Party supporter.

The Wanderer, where his article appeared, is a widely known very conservative catholic AMERICAN newspaper.

And, despite all this, they (Sobran and The Wanderer) are specifically saying that Bush is no Catholic Saint, much to the contrary.

Gene, stop evading the difficult issues and going for the easy path of calling foreigners "anti-Americans" and other ad hominems. Be a Man and say what you think about Sobran's article. You and Joe have so far evaded it, pretending it was not what opened this thread. You have so far attacked me and Kiwi, but you have never commented Sobran's article. Would you please? If you have a minimum of intellectual honesty, you should. It is this article which is at stake, not my or Kiwi's nationality.

Stop running cowardly from the real issue.

The ball is in your court.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 29, 2003.

I get a kick out of Atila's attempts at marginalizing my intentions and showing how ''old'' and crazy I am. That's OK. Of just about the whole lot of us, I'm the ONLY one here never to have complained when I'm abused. You can say whatever you like about me. I enjoy an ad hominem fizz with a sandwich in the evning!

Atila gets carried away: ''Our [Brazilian] local "FBI" has no right to tap phone lines or violate correspondence or emails without Judiciary consent, something that Bush's America sees for the first time in that great Country's history.'' Is that so? How was this idea spread around a big country like Brazil? By carrier pigeon?

The U.S. is quite free of illegal FBI intrusion, thank you, Atila. Nothing can be done here against the citizens without judicial approval. Not by our Patriot Act surveillances, or FBI or local police. They need the court's permission to investigate, or to interfere with me. We are VERY able to bring legal action against our own government! Yes; I can SUE the FBI or CIA or any branch of government, if they overstep the law. I would and could collect damages, if the FBI abused my liberty or took liberties with the law. In Brazil, I would be warned to desist. Or never be seen by human beings again.

You, naturally, believe this country can't be founded in justice for all. It's too rich. Your innocence is caused by long-standing prejudices against the Yanqui; and pride in your own sovereignty. You were brought up believing Che Guevara is better than George Washington, by far.

Except that-- if you could come to America, wild horses couldn't keep you contained in Brazil, where by the grace of God you find yourself. You would save for ten years for a chance to come to this dreadful, unfair country! Ha!

I hope someday you will come. Why not? A fourth of Mexico is here. We can't keep anybody out anymore. Don't even worry, you're already bilingual. That's an advantage few immigrants have to begin with here in my country. Come on up and criticise the President in public all day every day, if it makes you happy! Some of our more stupid people will think you're wonderful! All of New Zealand will love you too.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Anyway, I like Joe Sobran. Read him all the time. He's wrong about Iraq; we disagree. In America we have freedom of speech. You can say all the absurd things you please. Sobran has some good points. He has some absurd points. It's a free country.

I'm not a liberal. I'm conservative and proud of it, Kiwi-- and Atila. I believe we have the duty to save ourselves and others from insane people where ever they may be. If they run, we pursue them.

We've done an excellent job in Iraq; and there's something very important that has been accomplished by this coalition there.

The others, like Iran, Syria, and even North Korea; are forced to think twice about terrorizing their neighbors. It's been a direct MESSAGE; and they received it from Bagdad; courtesy of our armed forces & our President. Let them chew on it for a while.

-- euegene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Gene, Gene, Gene, my friend,

You are one more time evading the real issue. We are not discussing which country is more democratic; we are discussing the opening article. I am wrong about what the FBI can do? Fine, if the FBI can do nothing without judicial consent it is just like here. Remember that it was you that suggested that my country is a dictatorship. For your information, we can sue our government also, and most people that do this are victorious in court. By the way you speak, it seems that are an expert in Brazil. Could you show your credentials at that? By the way, I do not love Che and I think America is a Great Country. We owe many things to America. Which does not mean that American governments are infallible. Not even the Catholic Church is infallible, except in very special situations. I would like to know what you would say about my anti-Americanism if I were praising Clinton.

One more time you are dodging it, running from it, evading it, cowardly fleeing from it. As I am most aware that you are no coward, it amazes me that you refuse to contradict Sobran's article. THIS is the real issue.

You are expected to say:

(1) Why do you disagree with Sobran;

(2) If Sobran is an Anti-American radical liberal for saying that Catholics should be skeptical of Bush

(3) If "The Wanderer" is an anti-Amreican newspaper for publishing Sobran's article.

Please, do not make a fool of yourself. I have asked very concrete questions, that you stubbornly refuse to answer. Is that because you do not have an answer? Would it be that, having no answer, you stick to the tactic of trying to prove that your country is better than mine? I am not discussing it, you are fleeing from the real issue. You think your country is better than mine? Fine, I would agree in many aspects. As you know, 90% of my family lives in the US, including my sister and 100% of my cousins. The only country where I have traveled abroad was the US, and I had a very good time. I went to US two times, and those were my only foreign travels. But you are so silly as to preconceive that I never went there. I WAS IN THE US TWO TIMES, WHEREAS YOU NEVER WERE IN MY COUNTRY. If you paid attention to what I write, you would know this, for I have said it many many times. By the way, no, I am not bilingual, in fact I am hexa-lingual, as I know Portuguese, English, French, Spanish, Italian and Latin. So, don't try to confound our readers that a person who does not like President Bush is automatically an Anti-American. This would make 40% of American people Anti-Americans, by the last Gallup survey.

Please, do not flee, will you?

Explain why Sobran is wrong.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 29, 2003.

Gene, I respect your opinion about the US having done an excellent job in Irak.

However, this is not the problem, and you are dodging it again.

The problem is: Can a Catholic be so stubbornly opposed to the pope? THIS is the question, and not if I or Kiwi live in anti-American countries.

If the answer is YES (which I doubt), is it fit that those who call themselves orthodox catholics come to a catholic forum to ridicule the pope ant the Vatican? Calling them, at best, naïve and ignorant, and, at worst (as Joe did) that " They are actually either Islamo- facists or Stalinist-Socialists " ?

I think that, if a catholic disagrees with the pope in such a grave thing, either he should leave the Church or, if he thinks that this is a "oppinable" issue, he should at least shut up in a catholic forum, lest he scandalizes weaker catholics who do not know when to trust the pope and when not (I trust the pope all times, differently from you).

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 29, 2003.

In summary, Gene, I think you are an excellent American….

… And a very poor Catholic.

You made your choice. You are a free man, and, as you say, you live in a free country (just as I do).

But you have to face the consequences of your choice. You preferred to be an American than a Catholic. You chose to obey Bush and disobey John Paul. You are free to do that. But never forget that your free choice will be judged by God when you die. I do not judge you. In you situation, I do not know if I would behave differently. But the OBJECTIVE FACT is that you chose Bush instead of John Paul. It is up to you to decide if this was a wise choice.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@nowhere.com), November 29, 2003.

eugene, dont let their liberalism get to you...

you know what they say anyway... you can liberal when youre young, cus you got alot of heart, and you should be conservative when youre old, cus by then you should have grown a brain.

smiles all around, you know i love all you guys

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.

Request for Mrs Chavez: no more whiskey tonight for Eugene please(hide the bottle if he gets restless)

We can only hope he acts like an honourable man and attempts to answer the simple questions put to him(preferably in the morning when he awakes with a clear head.

Joking Eugene, smile a little will you my friend its not life and death here you puffed up old warrior(cute, though isnt he!). lll keep my own thoughts about Bush to myself as I was out of line calling him what I did in regard to being an ignorant,arrogant spoilt man of privlege and wealth. We all know youre a proud American and we could do much worse than have USA as the current world bully. It will be China by the time I am your age and my complaints today may seem very petty in comparsion.

IMO you greatly underestimate Dr Atila( 2 doctrates or 1?) all of us have much to learn from him, even if you cannot agree with all he says.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Well, you see: when you demonize us, ad hominems are acceptable: cowardly fleeing, do not make a fool of yourself, are so silly as to preconceive, don't try to confound our readers, do not flee --Atila

And Kiwi-- you are dodging it again, be so stubbornly opposed to the pope, is it fit that those who call themselves orthodox catholics come to a catholic forum to ridicule the pope, the Vatican, and ''No more whiskey.'' This from the genius who maintains, ''I laugh at Americans elevation of their President into a demi God. Respect for positon is one thing but the fanatical patriotism towards a politican is disturbing to any noraml human being. (You aren't so normal, Kiwi! Ha!) ALl politicans are corrupt, its a fact you cant dispute, deal with it,'' --Or, No one of us is capable of knowing the hearts of those we deal with. If this is difficult in person, much less in a virtual setting. I do not condemn Americans who *despise the pope*, because I know that the conflict between patriotism and our faith may be tough. At the same time, I do not condemn those people who think that *our current liturgy is a mess (and not a Mass)*. I do not know their reasons, their upbringing, and their motivations. God only knows our hearts. It is not only sound theology, but also literal evangelical words: " Do not judge and you will not be judged". How can a Catholic judge the inner conscience of another person? How could I say "someone is sinning and is going to hell"? This is not only arrogant, it is heretic!--

The heigth of the ridiculous, and we HAVE TO PROVE Sobran is wrong! Not only disagree; prove! Ha!

I don't give a fig what Sobran wants. He won't get it. He doesn't need it, no one has elected him to any post.

I have no idea why you blowhards think we ''elevated Bush to demi-God'' --and if you say I ought to quit the catholic Church instead of scandalizing ''WEAKER'' Catholics --(meaning YOU are STRONGER) tell it to your grandmother!

Man, the landslide from Brazil! A 600 word essay; only to prove he's the verbosity king of South America? Plus a teatotaler from the Tropic of Capriciousness?

__I love and revere the Pope. All the Popes. We know John Paul II feared a 3rd world war if America disturbed the ''delicate balance of peace'' in the middle east. He was very apprehensive. You still respect him and Sobran does! EVEN BUSH respects the Pope; ask him!

While you are wringing your hands and pleading down with Bush, I'm pleased to see Iraq has nothing more to fear under Saddam and his disgusting family. I'm sure the Pope is pleased with THAT aspect of this situation.

Is Joe Sobran pleased? Heck no; Bush is a monster. Is Kiwi pleased? Of course not, Bush once was a coke snorter, ''Oh my. If you cant understand what dangerous precedent has been set here then we cannot dicuss this any further I refuse to believe youre that ignorant and brainwashed,'' That and the barrage from Brazil by a hexalingual theologian cum lawyer who knows all about Brazil AND the U.S.--?

This is better than a play by S.J. Perelman. We are not in any quagmire in Iraq; it's a pessimist quagmire here in cyber-space. God save us from our Catholic friends!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Well, you see: when you demonize us, ad hominems are acceptable: cowardly fleeing, do not make a fool of yourself, are so silly as to preconceive, don't try to confound our readers, do not flee --Atila

And Kiwi-- (ever so humorously) you are dodging it again, be so stubbornly opposed to the pope, is it fit that those who call themselves orthodox catholics come to a catholic forum to ridicule the pope, the Vatican, and ''No more whiskey.'' This from the diplomat who maintains, ''I laugh at Americans elevation of their President into a demi God. Respect for positon is one thing but the fanatical patriotism towards a politican is disturbing to any noraml human being. (You aren't so normal, Kiwi! Ha!) ALl politicans are corrupt, its a fact you cant dispute, deal with it,'' --Or, No one of us is capable of knowing the hearts of those we deal with. If this is difficult in person, much less in a virtual setting. I do not condemn Americans who *despise the pope*, because I know that the conflict between patriotism and our faith may be tough. At the same time, I do not condemn those people who think that *our current liturgy is a mess (and not a Mass) *. I do not know their reasons, their upbringing, and their motivations. God only knows our hearts. It is not only sound theology, but also literal evangelical words: " Do not judge and you will not be judged". How can a Catholic judge the inner conscience of another person? How could I say "someone is sinning and is going to hell"? This is not only arrogant, it is heretic!--

The heigth of the ridiculous, and we HAVE TO PROVE Sobran is wrong! Not only disagree; prove! Ha!

I don't give a fig what Sobran wants. He won't get it. He doesn't need it, no one has elected him to any post.

I have no idea why you blowhards think we ''elevated Bush to demi-God'' --and if you say I ought to quit the catholic Church instead of scandalizing ''WEAKER'' Catholics --(meaning YOU are STRONGER) tell it to your grandmother!

Man, the landslide from Brazil! A 600 word essay; only to prove he's the verbosity king of South America? Plus a teatotaler from the Tropic of Capriciousness?

__I love and revere the Pope. All the Popes. We know John Paul II feared a 3rd world war if America disturbed the ''delicate balance of peace'' in the middle east. He was very apprehensive. You still respect him and Sobran does! EVEN BUSH respects the Pope; ask him!

While you are wringing your hands and pleading down with Bush, I'm pleased to see Iraq has nothing more to fear under Saddam and his disgusting family. I'm sure the Pope is pleased with THAT aspect of this situation.

Is Joe Sobran pleased? Heck no; Bush is a monster. Is Kiwi pleased? Of course not, Bush once was a coke snorter, ''Oh my. If you cant understand what dangerous precedent has been set here then we cannot dicuss this any further I refuse to believe youre that ignorant and brainwashed,'' That and the barrage from Brazil by a hexilingual pessimist cum lawyer who knows all about me AND the U.S.--?

Reminding us of a play by S.J. Perelman. We are not in any quagmire in Iraq; it's a quagmire of morbidity here in cyber-space. God save us from our Catholic friends!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Here is a crumb the great doctor throws poor Gene, who almost finished high school: ''I do not judge you. in, situation, I do not know if I would behave differently. But the OBJECTIVE FACT is that you chose Bush instead of John Paul.''

Sounds like judging to me. But after all, since the devil sold his soul to me I have trouble protecting the faith. Not so Atila. He is self-assured for the two of us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Jmj

Eugene and Paul H (and Joe S, when he comes around),
You guys, if you care to, will have to get along without me on this thread. I know better than to waste my time with people whose heads are residing in a very dark neighborhood. It's sad to see, that even after several months have passed since the forum had about twenty concurrent battles about this stuff, Mullah Atila and Kahlid Kiwi still haven't determined what is right and what is wrong.

I have to leave them in their ignorance, rather than waste time on them again. I read their posts out loud to myself just now. Then I realized that I had heard more beneficial things when I was sitting in the bathroom earlier today. The ramblings of Mullah Atila are less helpful to mankind than is passed gas.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

My dear Eugene sadly it looks like Mrs. Chavez was out at bridge and you had a free shot all night at the whiskey bottle. What a shame. Stuck between confusion and rage you blindly lash out at those who dare hold a different political view to your own. It makes for amusing if somewhat predictable reading.

Pointing out my many spelling and grammatical errors doesn’t add to your argument. (Ha!) Although given the level of your formal education its understandable why you place so much emphasis on such peripheral matters. (Ha!)

Posting the same information twice doesn’t add to your argument. (Ha!)

Making lame jokes and triumphantly proclaiming "Ha", may give you a personal sense of self satisfaction but it really only reinforces your own personal weaknesses and perpetually stunted moral formation.

Atila this is Eugene’s usual modus operandi when challenged. Boring isn’t it? Predictable as it is embarrassing to see a man of his age lose his dignity because of pride and small mindedness. Eugene holds an "inherent bad faith model" (look it up Eugene) in that his belief system is completely closed.

I have already apologised for offering my personal opinions about GW, they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but it's all Eugene has to go on. That and misunderstanding why I used the word "corrupt" to describe the political process and the trade- offs that must occur. I really can't be bothered explaining the basics of political science to the completely ignorant, particularly when they hold no real goodwill to learn about such things. Eugene’s understanding is not based on knowledge but emotion, as ever it comes from the heart but that doesn’t make him right, nor should we have to indulge his sincerity. Idealism and moral visions have of course played a part and Eugene can appreciate these but he lacks the ability to appreciate the power politics that also are involved, this is the corruption factor, something the Pope is not burdened with in the same way.

The poor guy is way out of his depth its hard not to feel sympathy, for any under dog, its human nature to identify with the little battler. So he refuses to discuss the issues and gets personal, two play that game, even if I have to lower my standards to communicate with the man. SO be it.

Here is the truth. This is a man, even at his age, who refuses to deal with the scars of the sexual abuse from his childhood. Combined with an inferiority complex and huge resentment (from his lack of formal education and South American heritage) it makes for a sometimes explosive cocktail. Me thinks he does protest too much. "I’m a REAL American he will scream, I’m born here, I’m living the dream, I’m the lucky one, I’m no dusky peasant " etc etc "real" Americans can spot try hard citizens like this a mile away, as easily as I can spot a first generation New Zealander, desperate and insecure springs to mind. Talk about "blowhard".

I only have to use the mildest of cultural references to have him breaking out in hives and screaming I’m a racist. Go figure.

He’s spent his whole life in denial of his childhood abuse and his family roots. You think he’d be proud to be of having Mexican heritage, but oh no, he’s AMERICAN through and through! No tequila for me, I’m a whiskey drinker!Ha! He travels abroad you see, but never talks about trips to South America, oh no he’s a man of culture, class, sophistication now he’s even been to EUROPE! Ha!He enjoys the finest French food, no lowly enchiladas or beans for this man! Ha! He likes Opera, he likes horse racing etc. etc.Ha! I could go on but as he has said about others "charity demands otherwise"

His self-image, a macho virile one coexisting with a strong moral self and a diabolic enemy image is explosive when mixed with a lack of higher education, and above all a lack of empathy. He cannot place himself outside his own worldview to see other perspectives. He lacks imagination in this regard, saving it all for dreaming up limp insults. Ha! Oh mercy 66 years and this is what he’s got to show for it. Who are I to burst your Bubble Eugene "Ha!" and all that.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Thank you Kiwi!
So refreshing, the ad hominem fizz you serve up on command. Yes; no doubt we aren't intellectual equals. My humble beginnings and your academic clout, hardly a match /

You charge me with the mean-spirited modus operandi ''when challenged''; as if you posed a challenge? Or the bold doctor from the south? Really, did I feel challenged?

Oh, I was dared to refute Joe Sobran. That's not challenging. I was told to quit the Catholic Church, since my madness was hurting ''the weak''. Or, your furtive reference to my Spanish roots? Not Mexican; although had they been so I'd be very proud of it. Kiwi gave it a hard try without presenting much challenge. I think he'll lay awake tonight hoping for the new ad hominem challenge to burst from his coconut. Never quit, Kiwi; a loose tongue never gives up.

And; I do love a tequila from time to time. But we're cozy with just anything in my poor household. Vodka & tomato juice seems fine; named after our own Mary Stuart. Never have been hived. Sorry, try harder, Kiwitz!

Incibbently, I disagree as well with Joe Sobran's conclusions about William Shakespeare. It was Will who wrote the plays, Mate. Are you going to lower the old standards and attack me for THAT heresy? Please don't! I would have to laugh at your next posts; and I'd rather remain a serious Catholic in this thread. It's my weakness; laughter. Ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

Well Gramps that much we share , the laughter anyway, even if I let you get under my skin and said some things I wish I hadn’t. Anyway I cant discuss politics with you but I certainly given anything a "hard try"- a dribbling old incontinent like yourself, its just not fair.

The only thing that will keep me awake is anxious nightmares of having to read more insufferable spasms and coughing from you as above( a final death rattle perhaps? I hope not). Out of concern for your health and well being Ill leave you to your own devices, you make a good enough case on your own anyway.

My advice for your health woes? Take four fresh habanero chilli peppers and eat raw.

My eyes are shinning at the thought. Chow ;)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

moderator,

if that really is kiwi above, his incessant taunts have no relevance on this forum and should be deleted.

kiwi, respect your elders... didnt your parents have the sense to teach you any manners???

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.

Oh, let him be, paul. Kiwi is the reed shaking in the soft wind; first flattered by our attention, then practicing statesmanship on the soap-box. He's a harmless young man all alone in the evenings. If he were the old-timer like me he might have some excuse. But we could have a heart? Why bury him; he gets a lift out of sharing with us.

If you were lonely & near- alcoholic, maybe dangerously overweight; --wouldn't you try to stir up a little fun on a Catholic forum? We like Kiwi. He's one in a million. One WHAT? --One of my many friends!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2003.

Kiwi is

"...first flattered by our attention..."

Bad.

"...then practicing statesmanship on the soap-box."

Better.

Atila is completely right. When it came to Pope John Paul II and America's King George, you chose the latter. Atila provided all the papal documentation, which I'm sure you poured over with great diligence.

The truth of the matter is that the Pope is the visible head of the social kingship of Christ among other things.

You owed him your allegiance; he has this right whether it has been marginalized into oblivion by a cult of man or not.

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. It makes no sense, from the start, trying to fit a that heresy into the precepts of our holy Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

very well, eugene,

but compared to me, every regular on this site except anti-bush is old, so can i make fun of kiwi in the same way?

like, kiwi, my old man, you should have your glasses checked... its not good to say "the younger the better" when youre not the youngest...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 30, 2003.

Emmie:
If Atila and you are right, I was only given those options YOU choose. Fall in line with the Pope without consideration for right and wrong; or separate myself from the Pope to follow a usurper of the Pope's prerogatives.

But you & Atila don't set the options for a Catholic. Just because you wilfully say I'm compartmentalising right & wrong by supporting our President, doesn't make that so; nor even my only option.

As a faithful Catholic I can love and believe in the Pope (when he's right, which is ordinarily), and yet help to defend our country. These are NOT offsetting choices. We all know there is always a right to self-defense. We have that option.

If our Holy Father had insisted a Catholic must be STRICTLY PACIFIST under penalty of mortal sin, I would be constrained to one option.

Doing so, the Pope would be infringing on powers not given him by Our Lord; Who clearly stated ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' Still, my loyalty to God would include an obligation to obey the Pope unconditionally. (Your version of Catholic's options).

Fortunately, the Pope hasn't indicated such a penalty. We are free to follow our conscience in matters such as national interests related to defense. Islamic fanatics have committed atrocities against our people. We were attacked on Sept 11, and the Pope knows it. All that has since ensued is in response to the SAME continuing threat. We are at war!

No Islamic Jihad skyjackers crashed three airliners on Rio de Janeiro; so I'm not surprised Atila is angry at me.

If they crash three airliners on Saint Peter's basilica I would be just as deeply offended by the enemies of our country. I see no real difference today, and accordingly, I support my President in the Iraqi- Afghanistan actions. If we (coalition forces against terror) don't help ourselves, no other country will help us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2003.

drat

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2003.

Who else went to the traditional Mass today?

What were the reading and Gospel? What were they last week?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

Come to our parishes and see, Emmie. Don't be shy. If you're a man of faith, we welcome you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2003.

>>>Looks like I hurt his feelings,it was unfair of me. Its one thing to exchange blokey banter and one upmanship its another alltogether to intentionally try and hurt someone as badly as you can.

"Oh, let him be, paul. Kiwi is the reed shaking in the soft wind; first flattered by our attention, then practicing statesmanship on the soap-box."

>>>Everone wants to be liked ! I wont deny that! However imagine going 60 odd years in this world being laughed at and ignored before finding a place where people are civil enough to entertain such ignorance from "King Chavez". He cant believe his luck!

As for "statemanship" I was merely responding to Joes political views with another perspective, as was Atila. Thats too much for our "King", he cant comprehend or tolerate more than one perspective- HIS OWN!.

It doesnt matter if that view is presented by myself or someone as educated and knoweldgeable as Atila or SObran the Bishops of the world or even ,yes even the Pope himself. "No challenge" to King Chavez he boldy declares! LOl youve got to give it to him for comic value

As I said the reasons given for war in Iraq were lies, lies lies. Who can blame Eugene though between the Goovernment propganda his copy of the "National Enquirer", and on the hour "Fox TV Iraqi war updates" he never stood a chance. Poor guy is still buying duct tape by the trolley load.

When he eventually makes an attempt to raionlise his dissident behaviour, it is nothing more than baldy humour even if its unintentional. ANd he thinks my soapbox efforts are poor!

"Fortunately, the Pope hasn't indicated such a penalty. We are free to follow our conscience in matters such as national interests related to defense. Islamic fanatics have committed atrocities against our people. We were attacked on Sept 11, and the Pope knows it. All that has since ensued is in response to the SAME continuing threat. We are at war!"

No time tonight King Chavez and Im off Tue/Wed on business trip, but rest assured Ill return to these and other claims youve made, finally you actually attempt to explain your position. No name calling though eh just the facts as you see them. It will be enlightening for all concerned.

"A harmless young man all alone in the evenings. If he were the old- timer like me he might have some excuse. But we could have a heart? Why bury him; he gets a lift out of sharing with us"

>>>>King Chavez, oh wise ruler, man of the world, of fine dinning and music that enables you to rise above your humble tortured begginings, oh great and mercifiul one please do not "bury me" do not abandon me!Youre my only friend!

"If you were lonely & near- alcoholic, maybe dangerously overweight; - -wouldn't you try to stir up a little fun on a Catholic forum?"

"Obese" >>Nope Im more brawn than brains.

"Alcoholic">>> A few posts upthread I was a "teatotaler from the Tropic of Capriciousness" which is it to be?!

"Lonely"->>> closer to the mark yet still miles away- more unfulfilled.

"We like Kiwi. He's one in a million. One WHAT? --One of my many friends!"

>>>Eugene admit it, you dont really "like" anyone but yourself.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

Snore.

As soon as you're ready, you can consecrate yourself to the Blessed Virgin according to St. Louis De Montfort's program and get on with the task of being Catholic.

(Who?)

Anybody.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 01, 2003.

Hello and good morning to you all. Kiwi, how wonderful to hear from you again. Attila, top o the morning to ya lad.

Gentlemen, if my arguments are pure bunk - let's see your syllogisms. Let's see your arguments, REASONS why. If I've written lies, let's see your URL back up for them. If my details of history (Rwanda's delegation sitting on the UN security council during the genocide for example), are wrong, you great geniuses should easily be able to prove me wrong in print.

ASSERTING SOMETHING ISN'T THE SAME THING AS PROVING IT.

With respect to the above issues... I've read Sobran and I disagree with him. This is the money quote:

"In the case of President Bush, we don’t really know what he knows — or what, as a reader of the Bible, he thinks he knows."

Now absorb that brilliant qualifying sentence of Mr. Sobran before reading the next sentence in which he asserts as true what he just claimed was unknown: "A foreign policy driven by a private interpretation of Scripture, never disclosed to the public, is as far from the republican standard as a foreign policy driven by bribery. It may be less sinful, but that’s beside the point. A man’s religion is his own business, but a ruler who thinks he has a divine mandate ought to tell the public about it. And there have been many intimations that Bush believes he has been specially anointed by Providence."

Mr Sobran is an idiot. In sentence one he admits not knowing what Mr Bush knows about the world's affairs - or what any US President would know given all the layers of intelligence gatherers, dossiers compiled by predecessors and files shared by other governments. But Mr Sobran PRESUMES that Bush flips a coin when deciding to move armies or takes on prophetic airs when contemplating the future.

However look which side was doing all the predictions and dire prophecies prior to the war in AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ! Virtually everyone who claimed to want peace not war, predicted the following:

a) Catastrophic carnage: thousands if not millions killed in action b) Millions of Iraqis without food, water or shelter c) Virtual destruction of Iraqi infrastructure d) The use of WMD e) The torching of all oil fields and ensueing ecological nightmare f) The instant eruption of the "arab street" and rise in terrorism worldwide.

Now Kiwi, Atila, friends, Romans, countrymen... who among you deny this? The above were cited by prelates as THEIR reasons for claiming the US "war" would violate just war principles: because of the foreseen (for them) bloodshed, the prospects of victory being so remote and the consequences for world peace so grave... they concluded that an American (or UN led) invasion would simply fail the litmus test.

AND I WOULD AGREE with these prelates... if I were coming from their perspective and basing myself on what they knew of warfare (WWII).

But I've done my homework and keep reading and talking with military people (the Pentagon is just down the street). The US Military has advanced so far ahead of virtually every other armed force that to PRESUME an invasion in 2003 would match that of 1944 is maddness.

In the end, of course, none of the dire consequences predicted by the war's opponents and the Catholics among them, came to pass.

And while it's EASY to claim I'm full of it and stupid etc. no body can prove it. You may think I'm wrong... but thinking and proving it are two different things.

Otherwise, go back and look at all the quotes from the Vatican officials, the bishops, and the Pope himself.... look carefully at the presuppositions - and recall the Catholic moral guidelines that the morality of actions are based on Intent, act, and circumstances.

If you are the Pope and you think the US' intent is simply war for the hell of it and not for the sake of stopping terrorism and defending yourself... then sure, on that reading - if that was the case, the US would be wrong.

But who can prove that this was the President's motive and intent? Reading a bunch of editorials or pieces from neo-cons but avoiding any quote from the President's actual speaches doesn't help matters.

If the act of invasion planned the use of WMD, carpet bombing, indiscriminate slaughter of civilians... then YES, the invasion would be immoral. But neither the Shock nor the Awe of the campaign included any such indiscriminate use of force.

If the circumstances included ecological and humanitarian catastrophies of the first order... then of course, war would be insane (which is one reason by the way why the Clinton and Bush administrations' approach to North Korea is so different: Seoul's 12 million people are within artillery range of 10,000 North Korean guns.)

Now honestly how many of you have brought the Catholic theory and tradition into this debate other than to make oblique references to it?

On my reading of things - the Bush administration made the case for war -and WMD were only one of many motives. Of course, Kiwi, you have checked out the White house's website for what the President has actually said was the motives right?

And our esteemed commentator Mr Sobran continued

"With all due respect for religion, Catholics should be skeptical of any ruler who thinks he has been singled out this way, particularly if he feels that his anointment releases him from the ordinary obligations of natural law."

Now Mr Sobran invokes Natural law as being somehow threatened by the Bush Administration. This baffles me since it was the Clinton administration that promoted abortion and gay homosexuality as much as possible as both domestic and global "human rights" even though both are against natural (and divine) law.

But Mr. Sobran claims a war or a particular foreign policy position taken in response to what 9/11 means is a violation of "natural law"??? That claim in and of itself smacks me of serious mental deficiency and you can tell the esteemed writer, Mr. Sobran that I said so. "To a headstrong man who combines rather simplistic religious convictions with enormous power, this kind of talk can be intoxicating. Bush is certainly a decisive and tenacious man, but he isn’t one to weigh alternatives or to question a course of action once he has decided on it. We should be grateful that he believes in Christ; but that isn’t enough to save a man from serious error. Otherwise, all Christians would be Catholics."

"He isn't one to weigh alternatives": um, Joe, it took us 14 months to go to war with Iraq. We went through the UN (resolution 1441 anyone?), we jumped through all the hoops. There was a congressional debate and a heated moral debate.

The side of the debate which didn't offer ALTERNATIVES was the peace- nik side. Including some Vatican officials whom in other field and other areas are fine and wonderful prelates and apostles... but concerning this debate their words fall flat: they had no alternative course of action other than the "status quo" game of "inspections and embargo" - which everyone agreed was "killing 100,000 Iraqi children a year".

I don't mind being called names by Kiwi or Atila (neither of whom give us their full names, and neither of whom therefore have to worry about relatiation or harm to their reputations.) But I do take umbrage when people question my faith because my political or geo- political OPINION varies with that of some non-American churchmen who for all their expertise in matters of faith didn't follow their own rules of philosophical moral judgment when voicing opinions about the morality of a particular war.

Finally, I have stated repeatedly that the Pope (both the man and the office) could not come out in FAVOR of war period. Of course he called on both sides to reach a peaceful conclusion to things... I wouldn't want it any other way! Of course the Church couldn't "take sides" - neither for the US OR AGAINST - because to do so would be to nix the freedom of the Church to evangelize in Muslim and other nations with the political strings of a secular course of action.

But who taught us that there were two separate powers: the church and state? The Church!

And who has repeatedly told us that they propose no specific agenda but rather preach principles upon which those in authority are to make prudential decisions? The Church!

Thereupon, when I see the tangled mess that is foreign policy - at which the State Department and the Administration are at odds, and in which US Companies and individuals, NGOs and Churches, political parties and ideologies all vie for some influence.... I know that simplicity is not what we are getting from ANY US administration.

The United States of America is not a monolith, even when at war. But the Constitution makes the President commander in chief, and directly responsible for foreign policy. He has to decide what is done.

No one on the left had any brilliant ideas for how to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism and those states that sponsor, arm, and support them.... and they still don't. Recall, these were the people who tried to foist abortion and homosexuality on the world via the UN Cairo conference in 1994.... stopped only by the Vatican and Muslim countries.

So see how shifting the territory is? In 1994, the United States Clinton administration was the enemy of the free world. But did we have million man marches in world capitals denouncing him? NOOO.

Instead we had editorials and journalists sniffing about the Pope being too powerful.

In 2003 these loosers of 1994 were also out of power... and so led the charge that anything the Bush administration does is bad, stupid, wrong, and led by a psychopathic bible thumper... Again the Pope was cautioning and pleading for one course of action... but did the usual suspects condemn him for meddling in the affairs of state? No! They suddenly found religion and so we have the likes of Kiwi thumping their chests about how we should all listen to the Pope....except when he talks about sexual morality or religion of course...

Well, my opinion is that we ought to obey the Pope in matters of faith and morals. But when the US bishops preach about "economics" ( a field none of them have ever studied) or the Pope cautions us to seek peaceful means to settle disputes with Saddam Hussein... it's not the same thing as teaching faith and morals (as those are based on principles whereas politics and the like hinges on contingent states of fact).

Kiwi - and Sobran - simply don't know the facts and don't care to go find them, yet call me names! That takes gall. Maybe they're from Gaul?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

"Joe Sobran received his B.A. in English from Eastern Michigan University and did graduate studies in English, specializing in Shakespeare." cptexas.org

Wow. I guess that makes him an expert when it comes to all things Catholic and geo-political huh?

Then his claim to fame is having writen for National Review. A journalist.... in other words, someone who writes what they think...just like us.

But speaking of "us".. who is Kiwi? Who is Atila? Who is Eugene?

Where are you guys coming from, what claim to fame or fortune, what claim to knowledge in all matters Catholic and politic do you have?

This isn't a challenge. I just am curious to know with whom I am exchanging heated emails with ;-)

Peace.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

Kiwi is off on a business trip!
We ought to admire this busy bee, all through with kidding us over a few days.

I found out early in my life that my sterngth lay in forgiving the offender. My life wasn't ruined by a child-abuser; and it won't be ruined either by a sadistic taunt or two from the Kiwi, exploiting for laughs what I endured at age three. I forgave the relative who took my innocence away; it was really all I could do. I'll forgive Kiwi as well, who rubs the past's evil into my nose. I had thought Kiwi might say: ''That's too low. I have class, why would I use this against a friend?''

I guess it's because he never had a friend in me. Just an adversary, an easy target.

He'll be back later this week to educate me in world affairs, and in truth; his specialty. He'll rally behind the Pope and/or pacifists; and accuse me of despising our Holy Father. Yes, and he's served warning; I'd better watch out. Next time he might not just insult our President. He even has my mother and father to lay at this forum's door. Why not? Nothing is sacred to him. It's all a tennis match for Kiwi.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2003.

Joe,
I'm an admirere of Joe Sobran. Not Joan Didion, just Sobran.

It's quite a reach for these people to center on Bush's ''relation to the evangelical Protestant subculture,'' and the dangers posed by ''apocalyptic foreign policy''.

Since Sobran is a Catholic, we expect him to be droll about these subjects as he questions the President. But to naturally assume the worst, that Bush may feel a vocation to fight the battle of Armageddon, is ludicrous. Even good Catholics can drag out everything but the kitchen sink to use against their political opponents.

Sobran has actually announced his candidature for President in 2,004. As an Independent, we assume. If this isn't spitting into the wind, what is it? I'm content to let him editorialise in the Wanderer or even in the Vagabond, or the Wandering Jew.. It's how he makes his living. The National Review forced his retirement long ago because of his bad-tempered anti-Zionist invective. But I'm not about to take Joe seriously when he pokes at George W. Bush. If somebody here in our forum worries about Sobran vs. Bush, I take it they just aren't grown-ups.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 01, 2003.

Really. Sobran wants to be president? Has he or anyone else for that matter spelled out a "plan" for dealing with terrorism (beyond the US' unilateral and unconditional surrender of course)?

It's really going to be fun watching the liberals tie themselves in knots over this one. Here they spent the 1990's exporting (via the UN) their global policies of sexual permissiveness, anti-family and anti-life styles, threatened poor nations with revoked humanitarian aid if they didn't sterilize or abort their poor, change their constitutions etc.... but now they claim to be champions of these same nations' "sovereignty" against a runaway US which is championing democracy!

Since when has the Left been in favor of nations' sovereignty? They have only one principle: power. And lo and behold, all the nations held under their sway are crushed into the culture of death: anti- marriage policies, promotion of hedonism, contraception, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, embryonic stemcell research (producing and killing human beings)! They are in favor of state controls of media, education, arts, and sciences... disarming civilians so as to better control them with the power of armed thugs and police state apparatus... and yet they're the ones who claim to be "anarchists"! Ha!

My friends, human beings are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights - whether they know it or not or accept it or not. And this being the simple case of fact, people will flourish to the degree their society and state respects these rights and the responsibilities that arise from them.

The simple fact of the matter is : today's liberals are not "liberal" as in people seeking liberty and personal responsibility. And today's conservatives are not "conservative" as in people who want to maintain the status quo or go back to earlier forms...

But alas, the left can't think: they can't only call people names, use slogans and cliches. That's why the "debates" get so personal, so quickly.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

Joe,
Sobran is vehemently anti-Israel, or rather anti- Israel-lobby at the U. S. government level. He expects nothing but failure for America if we support the state of Israel, which he blames outright for all the unrest in the Mid East.

By this logic, it makes sense he would condemn Bush and any other party candidate, since he traces every Islamic misdeed back to a U.S. policy in their region.

In the present circumstances he'll always hang the blame for terrorism where he thinks it belongs: on Israel's supporters. Sobran hardly seems to realise he legitimizes Islamic Jihad and even condones the evils of Sept 11. His vanity is such that only the destruction of Israel would ever amount to justice for all. But, what the hey; it's a free country; the man has journalistic credentials on the far right.

These ideas are what unfortunately have made Joe Sobran a loner. His friend William F. Buckley eventually faced the rude facts. Joe is an idealist without any future in western society. He let him go from a secure position at National Review. The waste of talent is regrettable, but Joe has nothing to regret, seemingly. He'll go down swinging, and devil take the hindmost.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

Hi Joe, Ill e-mail you privately, if that’s ok with you, regarding your reply. To continue this further publicly would only be serving my ego and little else.

Eugene I’m sorry. I don’t think you're free from guilt, not by a long shot, but its my behaviour I wish to comment on. This has happened before and not just with you at this forum. I tend to post on the Internet when I wish to procrastinate or avoid facing up to responsibilities in my life. Its an escape of sorts and a habit I have to break. If I feel even a slight injustice has been served I'm likely to overreact, when I’m on the net I’m often on in the wrong frame of mind.

If you could forgive me that would be great, I feel ashamed that I sometimes feel as though I must always “win”. Ill take a "sabbatical" of sorts for a while my friend.

Peace Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 03, 2003.