what happened to all the booksmart protestants who really knew their stuff. did we scare them all away?

all it seems we have left are the faiths and jeanies, who cant read and dont listen no matter how many times you tell them something. a shame really, i miss the old heavy hitters....

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003

Answers

If you go to the 'Ask Jesus' forum of LUSENET, you will find more anti-Catholic bashers like Kevin and David Ortiz, to fight against.

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

Hey, I'm still here ;)

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

You didn't read the question "anti-bush"! He asked about book-smart protestants, not reflectively contrarian ideologues.

Not that all ideologies are bad... you just need to remember that they're either based on ideas that are defensible (arguable, debateable) using reasons, or are mere exercises in a will to power.

Protestants typically are either "protesting" because they grew up with their beliefs and haven't discovered any reason to doubt their particular church's interpretation of scripture... or they claim to know the Bible and what it means better than Catholics do. That makes them fun to talk with.

Ideologues of the Leftist sort can be Marxist or socialist in the same way: they grew up in families that presumed that those theories of economics, politics, and morality were inherently superior so didn't need defending.... or people who are thinking their way through things honestly: suspending judgment until they think they've a grasp on the issues.

The latter type of ideologue is actually a very helpful person for society...provided they're honest. Those kinds of people challenge everyone (like Socrates) to explain themselves. It sharpens our minds, reminds us of our definitions, keeps us aware of priorities and proper distinctions.

The former type is just a drag: heavy on moral condemnation, but not offering any REASON why X is better than Y - other than to ASSERT that that is so.

The reflectively contrarian Protestant PRESUMES Catholics are the anti-Christ. The thoughtful one may think that but he/she is open to exploring the topic using the bible and history and reason.

The reflectively contrarian Ideologue PRESUMES Catholics are fascists who wish nothing more than to "do unto them what they'd love to do unto us": gulags and liquidation in the name of a future utopia. The thoughtful ideologue may think that too but is willing to give reasons why his/her particular ideology's gulags and liquidation would be "better" for humanity as opposed to Catholics converting the world to Christ.

In the fall of the Soviet Union you had essentially a generation of thoughtful Marxists succumb to the better logic and historical facts of the Catholic workers and intellectuals in Poland and elsewhere, whereas their unthinking elders (who would simply have shot the Solidarity movement members) were too old to resist.

Fact is, most Catholics on this board are serious about reading, learning, reflecting, ARGUING (i.e. using logic and reasons for or against something).

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

Hi, Litle paul H. and Joe.

Besides those protestants, I am there also at the ask Jesus Forum.

Not just them and me, but about 6 Catholics, some you already know.

By the way, Joe has never answered the question on Iraq: what is your strategy in Iraq Joe?

As for you Little paul, you were never able to agree with fellow Catholic Eugene about Jesus being a Jew.

Go figure.

Your brother in Christ

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 02, 2003.

youre right, elp, i still dont believe that Jesus was, in his heart, jewish.

but thats why this forum was created, to have scholarly debate between catholics and SOME protestants. not to argue against people who dont even read what is posted to them...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003.

paul, if you are born in the USA you are an American, if you are born in Mexico, you are a Mexican, If your parents are English, your parents can claim you as English no matter where in the world you were born.

Jesus parents were Jewish, thus he was Jewish, paul.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 03, 2003.

elp, not that i want to go into it again, i'll clearly state my point and then im not going to ruin this thread with an unrelated debate.

religion is NOT a race. if i were born to jewish parents, and i converted to catholicism, i wouldnt call myself a jew. if i were born to catholic parents and went to fundy or islam, i wouldnt consider myself to be catholic. i was born to atheist parents (who, thank God, later converted)... does that make me an atheist???

why should we treat judaism as a race, when we know that faith is dependant on each individual, and NOT his parents before him? FURTHERMORE... Jesus came to criticize the jewish traditions which were contrary to God's word EVEN THEN and NOW as well. the Jewish faith had fallen away from God's word and Jesus established a new church. to me, thats pretty not jewish... unless you consider martin luther a catholic, even after what he did...

simply stated, what with the jews OF THE TIME (and this i emphasize so that people wont again try to ad homonim me with bigotry against jews) having wholeheartedly crucified Jesus, with Jesus having established a new church built on Peter, and with Jesus' criticism of the man made religion that judaism had ALREADY become by his time...

i just frankly dont see how any logical application can be made which can accuratly state that Jesus is jewish other than that debunked idea of genetic judaism.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.

Paul:
You can call it debunked. But no one can debunk a fact. Jesus Christ is a Jew even at this moment at the right hand of His Almighty Father in heaven. His holy mother Mary is a Jew. All His Jewish relatives who have been saved by His blood, are now sainted Jews.

His cross was adorned with these words: Jesu Cristus Rex Judeus --(sp) because He was the King of the Jews. He is the True Paschal Lamb; sacrificed for us all; that is, the Jewish Lamb of God, in the Passover of Exodus. Jesus Himself addressed others saying: ''Salvation is from the Jews,'' (John 4 :22).

It's you who confuse religious affiliation with racial identity. He is a Jew even if He founded the Catholic Church.

God chose the Jews to be the ''light unto the Gentiles,'' from the beginning. Jesus is a direct descendent of David; King of Israel. Give thanks to God for His infinite Wisdom, who brought us Our saviour by way of a small, unloved and insignificant people. He could have chosen the Romans, or a Germanic or Asian people. But they were much greater in the affections of the world, they had much more prestige. God willed to raise up a tiny nation, rather than the great. He did so; and Jesus Christ is Lord! Ours and the world's!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

eugene, i've already stated that im not going to debate this subject in this thread. if youd like to resurrect the old thread to go over this again then we can do that... or we can just drop it.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2003.

You are free to respond and free not to respond; it's all right with me. I just spoke my old mind in this matter. No, a new thread isn't necessary; not for such a subject. It's a short subject actually; not open to much debate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 03, 2003.

If you are born in North, South, or Central America you can claim to be an American-- being a citizen of the United States of America is a different matter altogether. :-)

As to the debates, part of the problem with debating religion as opposed to say, science, is that religion has to do more with faith than with facts. You cannot always independently "prove" faith, the way you can with facts.

I think the other part of the problem with debates on this forum is that several of them go downhill into name-calling, which effectively ends the debating.

I'm not sure that being a Jew is a "race" thing as well as being a "religious" thing. It may be more along the lines of "you can take the person out of (some) place, but you can't take the place out of the person". Culture, so to speak.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 04, 2003.

Elpidio...what do you mean "my" strategy? I wasn't aware that I needed to personally have a strategy for Iraq, since all I'm doing is defending the President's strategy.

Not because it is perfect - but then, hey, nothing the Left has ever done even comes close to being "perfect"! Look at their vaunted "war on poverty" - 30 years and $1 Trillion later, there are still poor Americans... how come? Because their methods are flawed and immoral.

Look at the public school system mess: more money paid to the same people won't solve anything! Yet market forces (competition) does force people to change... giving every American married couple a voucher to spend on educating their children where ever they choose, including at home, would EMPOWER individual families and local communities. Suddenly the NEA and other totalitarian unions wouldn't have a monopoly on education and indocrination. They'd have to compete with others whose programs are superior... and it would improve everyone.

Why is it that Democrats' first solution to any FAILED domestic program is to spend MORE, whereas their first reaction to hardships in foreign policy is to SPEND LESS?

With respect to Iraq... it was a waste of time and money to lay an "embargo" on the country and no-fly zones (patrolled by the US and UK for 10 years). What could that possibly achieve other than to hurt Iraqi civilians who didn't form part of Saddam's inner circle? They had illegal oil pipelines running to Syria, illegal tankers plying the waters of the Persian Gulf, illegal arms shipments coming in from France, Russia and China... and Saddam was still killing his own people and threatening others! And under whose Administration was this whole situation created and maintained?

The embargo didn't threaten the regime - and it didn't help a captive people (held captive also by food in the "oil for food" program)! But did you see million man marches condemning Saddam for his evil? NOOOOO. People only protest when some leader is willing to actually CHANGE the fundamental situation.

Now how do you change the basic situation without an invasion? Claiming that "inspectors" will do the trick is insanity. When has it worked? Did it work in the Balkans? I was in Europe in 1990-1993 when they sent in team after team of "EU" specialists to broker cease- fires... but the Serbs didn't take them seriously. Nor did they take the "blue-helmets" of the UN seriously. Only when the Croats backed by US advisors launched their blitz on the ground did the situation change.

How could unarmed inspectors (escorted everywhere by Iraqi secret service agents) disarm a nation whose totalitarian control apparatus was so strong and so well organized?

And even when brave Iraqis did defect (at a cost of their lives and families) and tell the UN inspectors of illegal arms programs and their whereabouts... the Iraqis simply kicked them out, denied it, and dared the UN to do something about it. They read the western news. They knew the "peace-niks" arguments: war was too costly an option, so it would be unthinkable.

The argument against war then is that it'd be too costly in terms of money and blood - but that argument is based on the premise that a war would be bloody and hugely expensive (by being hugely destructive).

My argument all along - before, during, and after, was that the US military has advanced enormously in 10 years since 1990 whereas most other nations' militaries are still on the World War II style footing.

Europeans fears were of Stalingrad or Berlin style urban warfare (hugely destructive in terms of bloodshed and loss of wealth), whereas most of the Left predicted a "quagmire" like Vietnam (with a tropical, mountainous climate, and an insurgency backed by a superpower). Both were basing their "fears" of a new war in Iraq then on past wars waged in different places by different armies using different tactics and weaponry.

I was looking at the modern US military that employs modern weaponry and tactics... and so believed that we wouldn't use indiscriminate force, wouldn't kill tens of thousands of civilians, and wouldn't destroy their infrastructure or environment.

This being MY PREMISE, I used the Catholic Church's Just war doctrine accordingly and came up with a conclusion that an invasion to remove Saddam from power (authorized by the US Congress by the way) would be justified on any number of humanitarian, self-defense, and international law grounds.

Iraq was a threat to world peace. It did have WMD and gave no credible proof of having gotten rid of them (the UN demanded that the burden on proof be on Iraqis, not the inspectors). It did have the industrial base to construct IRBMs, as well as known links to terror organizations who considered the US to be an enemy.

Iraq was an immediate threat to the region and its own people. The war on terror being what it is, the US gave them fair warning and peaceful options.

US plans envisioned a lightning quick blitz, and minimal destruction and casualties both for us and them. And apart from removing a dictator, setting up a representative government and draining the economic swamp that everyone claimed was the "source of terrorism", the US motivation included the extension of authentic human liberty and inalienable rights... all noble goals, and means well within the boundaries of Just war theory.

The only way you can oppose the US invasion's rationale is to buy into the moral relativist argument that there is no objective and knowable human good and thus no one nation can be right or wrong... but that's not the premise the UN was founded on, and it's not a Catholic moral principle. IMO

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 04, 2003.

haha, my question has provided several completely tangent debates... this should be interesting and confusing to read...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 04, 2003.

Joe S., I agreed with you to the extent that I also wanted saddam out.

I also wnanted less casualties.

This is where I did not agree with the President:

-We had no timetable to be in Iraq. -The policy of occupation wasn't spelled out. - no policy on self-government after saddam.

No wonder France and Germany also turned against the USA.

That is why I said to you Joe that you were rejoicing too early when you claimed there were no big casualties in Iraq.

You spoke too soon.

President Bush besides trying to get rid of saddam on personal grounds,....

has stayed there for the oil.

Iraq did not train Al Qaida. Saudi arabia and afganistan did. We did not invade saudi Arabia. We invaded Afganistn.

We did not stay but 6 months as an occupayion force in afganistan, a worse country than Iraq.

Why, No oil.

Iraq is sitting in the world's second oil reserves.

Bush and his dad are in the oil business.

Bingo!!!

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 05, 2003.

Elpidio.

Ignorant of the facts.

Bingo!!!

-- (Gonzalez@Is.Wrong), December 06, 2003.

Elpidio is simply repeating the liberal party line. We know there are simplistic explanations to be exploited, if ever you need a stick to beat the Republicans with.

Bush and Cheney's case is harder for liberals to attack, since his enormous success is a sticking point for them. He has yet to really fail during this crisis. What to do? No sexual scandal, no corruption or cowardice. Bush is neither Neville Chamberlain nor Bill Clinton. They just can't lower his popularity ratings with the American people.

Oh, well. Try the oil angle; drag out some dirt about big money, corporate interests, etc. Maybe something will stick?

Joe tickled me with a few powerful accusations: ''Their vaunted ___war on poverty___ - 30 years and $1 Trillion later, [actually four trill.] there are still poor Americans... how come? Because their methods are flawed and immoral.

Look at the ____public school system mess: more money paid to the same people won't solve anything!_____ Yet market forces (competition) do force people to change...''

We don't see how Elpidio will touch these subjects with a sixty-foot pole; he's in a teacher's union. He believes in confiscating those tax trillions to pay for social programs, taking them from the ''rich''. That makes a Geo W. Bush just the guy to bash! He gives OUR tax money-- back to the ones who don't need it ! Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.

No Eugene,

the liberal tag the US media uses doesn't apply to me, Eugene

On social issues sometimes I am progressive, so was FDR , That is Roosevel on the dime coins(social security..., ) ,but not on homosexual rights.

I believe we must help the poor, but for a short time. That is why the welfare system failed.

Help the disabled until he becomes able to provide for himself.

I believe we are the only species that is one to one ( that is, by age 20 there is a man for each woman, that is no accident).

on Environmental issues I sided with Clinton (a Democrat) and the other Roosevelt (Theodore) a Republican. I believe we must keep some trees and animals out there for our future generations to see.

We must recycle all we can.

On economic issues I am a fiscal conservative (closer to republicans)

Worker's comp must be kept to a certain limit. Now is out of control. budgets must be balanced , must have a surplus, never on the red.

Streets should be kept clean and in working condition for everyone, not just big business and the rich.

On moral issues I am a conservative:

No abortion No euthanasia

On legal issues I am on both sides of the coin: Everyone should be entitled to good legal representation.

yet, damages, punitive and so on must be lower than what is now.

On political issues:

All parties should be allowed media exposure Presidents must be elected by popular vote.

On patriotic issues:

I am for war when necessary, but must have objective and timeline.

On theological issues: God is one, his name is Yahweh, Jesus is not God. Our prayers are towards God.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.

What I like about you Eugene, besides your honesty,

is that you don't hide under fake names like the one before you.

I don't hide.

I can take sh...no matter the consequences.

-- ElpidioGonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 06, 2003.

Nothing theological about your idea of Jesus. You know the barest truth about the middle east. You have no way to defend the present educational system. And we BUY almost all our oil. America doesn't need to confiscate any. Nevertheless; if a region where oil is pumped happens to fall under the control of evil people, a certain level of ''precaution'' is called for. Thanks to the vast experience in that business, Bush-Cheney don't have to find it out later, when it's too late. They know what a careful strategy should be. We're fortunate to have them working on the side of western society.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 06, 2003.

We're still in Afganistan. We're still in Kosovo. Neither have oil. For that matter, how much oil was to be had in Somalia? Not a drop. What were we doing there? Humanitarian relief. Who pulled us out? Bill Clinton.

We're still in Germany and Japan. Neither have oil.

Did the Truman administration have a "plan" or timetable for how long we'd be stationed in Germany or Japan? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Do you WANT the US to publish its PLAN? Are you crazy? Let the enemies know what we hope to accomplish, when, how, by whom, etc?

Giving deadlines (arbitrary) rather than goals is stupid in business and in foreign policy. You don't confidently plan to occupy for 6 months (tell everyone about it) and then expect the world to cooperate. If we did, what's to keep the Baathists from waiting until we leave before striking?

Look at the "road map" and all previous "peace plans" for the Middle East! Deadlines for compliance only gave terrorists the power to de- rail the "process" with a well-timed car bomb.

That's why this talk about a "plan" is so stupid and bogus.

Do the Democrats have a plan for promoting Gay Marriage? Sure. But do they TELL THEIR OPPONENTS ABOUT IT? no.

Do quarterbacks or coaches routinely tell their game plans and plays to the other side? Do chess champions tell their opponents the moves they hope to make? No. Then why in the world would the President of the United States tell his plan for Iraq or Afganistan to the world when doing so would directly undermine the chances of that or ANY plan of being realised?

You tell the world of your strategic intentions, your goals. But you don't tell them how you plan to achieve them. FDR announced the US' goal of defeating the Axis powers and demanding "unconditional surrender" but he didn't cable Hitler with his "timetable" and announce D-Day in advance!

Then we come to the stupidity about "oil". Oil is a fungable material on the world market. The more you have being sold, the lower the overall cost is, hence making "energy" expenses less and less and thus across the board savings on EVERYTHING, THUS SPARKING ECONOMIC BOOMS.

We aren't stealing oil. We aren't profiting directly from the sale of oil in Iraq. 100% belongs to the Iraqis, and 100% of the profits goes to paying off their debts and paying to rebuild their country and run their government. We're in the process of spending $87 billion of our own money to help this process... spending money isn't stealing!

Without oil being drilled and pumped, Iraq doesn't have a source of income or of JOBS. Without jobs you don't have a middle class or a tax base... you don't have social stability or a sense of pride and responsibility!

So yes, oil is a part of the picture and it will help Iraq become a vibrant and successful country yet again. But it wasn't the motive and it wasn't the goal. After all, we could have drilled our own oil from Alaska for far less money and effort.

And it's not "unfair" or "stealing" to lower energy costs GLOBALLY, FOR EVERYONE, by pumping more oil into the world markets. It is simple economic law - and it helps EVERY NATION ON EARTH.

It's a shrewd and wise investment. But since the Left has never studied or excelled in matters of economics or wise investments, I guess being successful and right is a sin.

Finally a word about "the end of major combat operations". Bush declared an end of "major combat operations" on May 1. Now would someone please explain to me why an end of MAJOR operations somehow means he claimed NO OPERATIONS would continue after that point?

Look at the major losses since then: both were helicopter accidents or attacks. Both involved a dozen or so men at once. While more than the daily single or double deaths, they were one time shots, not the result of a pitched battle.

Pitched battles are "Major" - and so, since the US finally seized all major cities and towns on May 1, and finished off all Iraqi divisions and major units, how could Bush NOT HAVE CALLED AN END TO MAJOR OPERATIONS???? He never said that the "war was over" or that peace had arrived.

Ah but by not reading what he wrote or basing one's anger on what he actually SAYS... makes for an easier life.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

Hey Joe, I hate to stick a monkey-wrench into this finely tuned machine of the new world order of industry, but you were aware that the nature of the The Republics were condemned by several pontiffs as being contrary to the true nature of the Social Kingship of Christ, right? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 08, 2003.

What is/are "The Republics?"

Specifically who condemned it/them and where?

They condemned the whole thing/concept, or just some aspect of it?

-- (Gonzalez@Is.Wrong), December 08, 2003.

I read your post, Joe.

I still don't buy it.

The way you wrote makes me believe you work for national security.

Always evading the questions.

That is why our deficits are now 500 billion plus.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.

How should Joe write, to please you, Elpidio?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 09, 2003.

Eugene, I think Newt Gingrich, Joe's favorite Republican from the 1990s has already answered for him.

Administration's Policy in Iraq, Saying The U.S. Went 'Off a Cliff' Sunday December 7, 10:25 am ET Key in Iraq Is 'Not How Many Enemy Do I Kill' But 'How Many Allies Do I Grow'

NEW YORK, Dec. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- In an exclusive interview with Newsweek, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a quiet confidant of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says the U.S. went "off a cliff in Iraq." In the December 15 issue (on newsstands Monday, Dec. 8), Gingrich talks about the shortcomings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, saying that "Americans can't win in Iraq. Only Iraqis can win in Iraq."

Article

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 10, 2003.

Even if Gingrich's were the final word, we see in another perspective. The end of the war may never come, if we consider guerrila strikes to be an extension of it.

The war is actually over, and what you see isn't a losable operation. It's occupation which can't last forever. The U.S. isn't like Israel, sticking around to the last man.

Neither is the concerted guerilla activity. It's conducted by foot soldiers without fortresses or logistical support. They're much like a rich man's zapatista revolution. They may have some superior weapons, but the host country can't even help them. They depend on money from Jihad groups like Saddam.

Therefore, without suicide assassins their power to defeat a modern army of even the limited size we're keeping there shouldn't frighten us.

Naturally it's painful to suffer the attrition each day of two or three military deaths. No one wants a single soldier to die. But our armed forces have inflicted an enormous number of casualties on this enemy, while still sparing the great majority of civilians.

Gingrich is speaking in some abstract kind of way unrelated to the matter of actual fighting. It isn't even real pessimism, I think. If frustration is to be counted as failure, he has a point; the Iraqi situation amounts to lost time and lives and money. Frustration, however, doesn't compare with mounting losses in the thousands. That's what Bush's critics were predicting as far back as Afghanistan. They had to eat crow; our coalition rolled up victory after victory, and most of our men & women came through unscathed.

I wish Gingrich would explain why he sees no victory in sight? He isn't counting this year's events, I guess. He's working on a new ''book''; How the Grinch Stole Iraq for a little while, and Had to Give it back'' by General Newt Gingrich --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 10, 2003.

That's a good one,'gene.

As a Christian, I believe that must always challenge the premise given many years ago here in the USA and echoed throughout Christianity since the moment the Church joined the Empire in 325 AD:

My country right or wrong.

For me, is give me the facts, the morality of it, and for how long.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 11, 2003.

Are you really looking for facts? You could have fooled me. You look for the leftist slant. You think Gingrich shows it, which couldn't be so; but you smell something. How is ''off a cliff'' an accurate fact? I would have written ''a stumble'' or ''not going smoothly''. I guess Newt has a fetish for hyperbole. But whatever; I think he's plain wrong. It is my Country right or wrong; but I only cheer for her when she's right.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 11, 2003.

I know this will sound bad but I was never impressed with Mr. Newt. His book on restoring America was breathtakingly dull and trite. But then I suppose he was too busy to go profound.

Still I vaguely recall hearing lots about how the "Contract with America" was a disaster, evil, bad, terrible, unfair, etc. night after night on the TV news and day after day in the NYT BUT, amazingly these "watch-dog journalists" never took the time to actually TELL YOU what the actual words of the contract were!

So lots of ink gets spilled making us HATE republicans, while scrupulously avoiding the said republican's words and contract that supposedly was so evil... I found that highly illuminating as the typical way the Left handles the RIGHT... pile on without mentioning specifics.

It happened the very same way recently on the Partial-Birth Abortion issue as journalist after journalist and news source after news source bent over backward to AVOID specifics about what D&X or D&E "proceedures" actually consist of and why these fake names aren't accepted by the medical industry as opposed to the actual descriptive name: partial-birth-abortion.

Getting back to Iraq...now the Vatican wants the US to stay so as to prevent the situation from unravelling. So...we'll be there for another 50 years.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 11, 2003.

Ah the old either/or fallicy: either my country is perfect, or it's the incarnation of the anti-Christ.

And this is allied normally with the unspoken belief that if America (as represented by its current executive branch) makes a mistake or moral sin, then ALL SIN in the world is directly attributable to the United States of America and everyone else is by implication innocent of all responsibility for their own actions or omissions.

Theologically this is called "scape-goating". Psychologically it's called projection. Place all your guilt on someone else, hate him, and then feel good about yourself or someone else. It works, which is why it's the standard Left tactic.

Hate the capitalists...meaning that the proletariat can do no wrong. Hate the Jews...meaning Germans can do no wrong... Hate the Catholics...meaning the Protestants never did anything wrong (thus the Protestants never killed witches, they never had their own "inquisitions" or secret police, they never burned people or had them hung, drawn and quartered - despite poor Campion...).

Not surprisingly I don't go for such sound byte substitutes for reasoning when looking at MY COUNTRY. With respect to Iraq, we did more good there than anyone in recent memory and already fewer Iraqis have died this year than in past years EVEN INCLUDING THE WAR deaths... and the future looks brighter in that land, small terror pinpricks notwithstanding.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 11, 2003.

I am a centrist, Joe, not a leftist.

That is why I was in favor of replacing Saddam. The man was evil.

But you finally answered my question: 50 years in Iraq.

I just hope we have the money and the lives lost to stay there all this time.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 11, 2003.

You hope? I doubt it Elpidio. We know you don't hope, you look on with a judgment ready. If there's some success, you will demean the type of success. If there is failure, you'll place the blame. But what have you and your party contributed? Some tax money.

The same taxes Bush lowered for the citizen. But you would prefer to say: for the rich.

It's a zero sum game for the proud ones. Come over to MY side. If you don't, then hell with all of you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

Come over to MY side. If you don't, then hell with all of you.

If any one sentence embodies te spirit of this forum, this is surely it.

Good one, Gene.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 12, 2003.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case...but here we go again, qualifying each other or outright disagreeing...

People can honorably disagree with Bush or the Pope, or me on lots of policies...but some issues; the war on terror, moral issues like abortion, gay homosexuality, contraception, etc, and the LC, there is no middle ground. You can't come to a half-way position whereby the war was OK but also morally corrupt, or that abortion is wrong but morally licit, or that active homosexuality is bad but permissible, or that FrMM is a saint but also a monster and his congregation does fine work but is also a cult...

Anymore than we can agree that a square circle exists.

Now we can avoid ad hominem attacks on each other. We can strive to quote other sources to back up our beliefs... we can decide that a given issue is far too complex to decide anonymously in two paragraphs.

We can honorably debate whether the tarriff on steel imports is prudent, whether more bishops should be excommunicated for malfeasance or mismanagement, or if the Vatican could have been quicker to react with this or that local crisis... we can debate about whether the LCs could be better at this or that apostolate too... but to do all this we have to KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

If you've never read the President's speeches or published statements and goals...how can you make up your mind RATIONALLY about him? Basing your ire on what the dim-wit 4th grade education US Media has to say is maddness.

If you've never read the Pope's encyclicals or the Catechism, if you've never read or studied his theology on the body or weekly addresses... if your understanding of Catholic moral theology is weak or non-existent... how can you RATIONALLY CONCLUDE that he is wrong about anything?

If you weren't a Legionary seminarian for any length of time, or had serious personal involvement with the RC movement, if you haven't read the books written by the people in question or heard them speak or seen them in person... how can you make a reasonable moral judgment about the congregation?

These debates are not about feelings. Anyone can FEEL anything. But to base a moral judgement on FEELINGS is insanity (literally).

I don't agree with everything the President has said or done... but having read what he actually says and writes and having followed the circumstances and situations fairly closely I tend to agree with him more than not. I know he's not Catholic, and I know he's not perfect and could have done things better etc... but that doesn't make him the anti-Christ.

With the Holy Father, I agree with his teaching 100%. Not everything he does is perfect, but then perfection is not the bar for holiness. (Surprised? It's true. You can be holy doing the very best you can given your circumstances and wisdom... even if "objectively" you could have "done more", provided you didn't sin). Thus knowing what he knew about the US/Iraq situation, I can conclude as he did: that war was a bad idea. But then knowing what I know (which I doubt he did or took into consideration), I think it was a prudent thing to do and will be proven in the long run as the correct path to take.

Had the Pope made a positive and unequivocal teaching that the US was the bad guy and Iraq was the innocent party, I would have dropped out of the debate entirely. But the Holy See and the Pope's actual words were highly diplomatic and neutral. No moral argument was made for its position other than "No to war and yes to Peace, because we say so". Hardly a Humanae Vitae moment. But given the Pope's position and the danger of a clash of civilizations, I didn't want the Pope to praise the US!

With respect to the LC...well, I've repeatedly made the point that I wasn't a perfect member and that being human most members probably aren't perfect either... but also that that's a far cry from moral corruption and malicious evil. My on-line anoynmous opponents never seem capable of understanding the difference or nuance involved here. They talk about unfortunate mistakes as though they were premeditated crimes against humanity...as if seminarians and priests study 12 years just to make some lay person hot stomping mad...

A little less passion and pride and a little more patience and humilty typically solves such problems. Judging someone on the basis of "gut feelings" is never a smart idea.

They conflate personal, emotional, subjective FEELING with public, rational, objective FACT. They confuse accusations with convictions, claims with proof, and hatred with pure motives. Just like the above issues, I deal with facts, evidence, reasons, etc. and they with unsubstantiated heresay and unprovable claims.

So if you hate Bush, or the Pope, or the LC, let's see your REASONS... personal feelings just don't cut it when the goal is some sort of moral judgment.

Just because someone is hated doesn't mean he's guilty. Satan hates God. Sinners hate saints... you don't need a reason to love or to hate. Both are acts of the will.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.

That is the most rational statement I had seen from you Joe.

It truly comes from the heart.

Probably the first 3 lines were directed at me.

I just hope the other ones you mentioned are also not afraid to respond.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 12, 2003.