The moral vote this september...young voter needs help!greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
In august, I will begin my first year studying theology in college and I need some help.I know that priests are not allowed to try and force us to think a certain way politically, or force us to vote a certain way. I know they can and must try and pursuade us to vote in such a way that our vote reflects Catholic Moral Teaching, but ultimately, they must still be very careful in not demanding that we vote a certain way.
These days, its becoming very unclear as to how our votes may reflect, as best as possible, our adherence to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. John Kerry is pro-choice, but I prefer his stance on other social justice issues. President Bush is anti-abortion, but his decisions to protect this country have resulted in a violent war that even the Holy Father has disagreed with.
I just turned 18 and will be voting for the first time this september. I want to make a good choice. Please give me some advice as to how I might be able to make an informed decision this fall. I want my vote to, in some way, reflect Church teaching, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine just how that will be possible.
Thanks,
Frank
-- Frank D (FrankDD87@aol.com), June 18, 2004
The war is not the law, the war is a just war and the war is practically over...Abortion is the law, abortion is murder, abortion is ongoing...
-seems a simple decision to me....
God Bless.
Daniel////
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 18, 2004.
Hi Frank!Daniel is right. Also, check out Bill Nelson's posting below on the USCCB's most recent statement. The war is nowhere mentioned there. First priority is given to life issues.
God Bless,
-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 18, 2004.
Good questions. I'm glad you are asking. Most folks will go to the polls this November and pull the handle without thinking, neverming asking questions.BTW if you are going to vote in the presidential election it'd be best to hold off till November when the rest of us line up to perhaps have our vote ignored by computers that have no paper trails.
There seems to be no candidate who prefers no killing. Clearly the dubbya doesn't give a sparrow's fart for poorer live people of this country and he has been very dangerous in his first term. Imagine what he could set off in his second with no fixed election to be concerned about? That's what young people should be questioning. (especially if you were draft age)
-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 19, 2004.
Frank,
To add to what Vincent said, take a look at these references:Catholic Answers Voter's Guide
Bish ops Issue Statement on ‘Catholics in Political Life'
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
Frank,Don't forget that your civil liberties are under attack by the Patriot Act that King George wants to make perminent.
However, Kerry is against the Church on a host of issues.
On the other hand King George is just an absolute moron. He has pushed the U.S. back over 50 years in Foreign relations.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
He has pushed the U.S. back over 50 years in Foreign relations.Actually our foreign relations are just as strong now has they have been for 50 years. Our foreign relations are actually stronger with Italy, Scandinavia, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Middle Asia then they have been for at least 100 years. France doesn’t like us, but they haven't liked us for a very long time (they see themselves as competitors to the US and have during all the 20th century).
PS: name calling only tends to call your arguements into question. I would avoid name calling, especially on a Catholic forum, if I were you.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
Frank,
Here is an excellent analysis of what the Bishops wrote this week.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
Im sorry, I know I said september. Let me explain. I'm off to Salamanca to study theology. I'll be voting from Spain, and I must mail it in a few weeks earlier.Anyway, you guys have been a great help. Well, some of you have been helpful, others not so much.
My father refuses to vote in this election. He believes neither candidate is worthy enough to lead this country. But he's been voting for years. On the other hand, this is my FIRST chance to vote. I don't want to miss it.
I believe George Bush presents our best chance at staying safe. Terrorists do not care who's in power, what action or non-action we take, wether we pull out of Iraq or not, or how much money we give to Islamic countries. They've been bombing American sites, killing Americans and Americas friends through many different administrations. Regardless of what we do or say, Fundamentalist Muslims will always hate those who are not like them and do anything they can to kill us.
For me, this war was not "pre-emptive." Just yesterday Russia admitted that they had evidence and info that Iraqi officials met with Al Qaeda operatives close to Osama bin Laden to try and plan an attack on us. Iraq has hated us since even before they invaded Kuwait. Even when the Reagan administration helped put Saddam in power in the 80's, Saddam hated us.
Let Bush make as many sleezy deals for $$$ as he wants. I don't care. He may be acting greedily, but at least he'll try his best to keep us safe.
Frank
-- Frank D (FrankDD87@aol.com), June 19, 2004.
Frank,
You might want to read:
A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush
By: David Aikman
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
Frank, You tricked me. You had your mind already made up.
-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 19, 2004.
Chris,You did not trick me :-)
Daniel////
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 19, 2004.
"Actually our foreign relations are just as strong now has they have been for 50 years. Our foreign relations are actually stronger with Italy, Scandinavia, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Middle Asia then they have been for at least 100 years. France doesn’t like us, but they haven't liked us for a very long time (they see themselves as competitors to the US and have during all the 20th century)."Right. Because Mexico, Italy, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Middle Asia really matter in the political world. King George has only done more to hurt relations with the Middle East. Especially when we pull out of Iraq. You will be amazed at how fast the destruction of democracy will take. He hasn't done anything with Mexico. He made a few campaign promises, which he never kept. This is besides the fact that he has broken a host of international laws and lied to the American people. He has also gotten us involved in 2 wars, and almost 2 more, with Syria and North Korea. He is a war monger and a man that enjoys the power of the Presidency but doesn't want the responcibility.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 19, 2004.
Scott,I am voting for Bush because of what he does and the principles he strives to uphold that I agree with...
Am I to assume you will vote for Kerry because of what Bush does that you disagree with? If not -regarding Catholic teaching, what does Kerry do/offer me the apparently misguided voter?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 20, 2004.
"France doesn’t like us, but they haven't liked us for a very long time (they see themselves as competitors to the US and have during all the 20th century)."Such as when French annd US troops fought side by side in the two greatest wars of all time? Yes, name calling is bad but so is the endemic Francophobia here. Maybe some people need to remember that if it wasn't for France's assistance, no such nation as the USA would ever have existed. If France hadn't later "sold" its American territories to the USA at a giveaway price, the USA would be at best an insignificant country on the east coast and would probably have long ceased to exist.
Frank, to answer your question, neither candidate is a "good choice". The best thing you can do is to join with others try to exert pressure to change the USA's idiotic electoral system.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 20, 2004.
Steve,
What I said was "France doesn’t like us, but they haven't liked us for a very long time (they see themselves as competitors to the US and have during all the 20th century)."The French embraced our help in the 20th Century only when it became obvious they were going to loose (or already lost) the great wars of the 20th Century. French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions on the part of the French, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and ordered the withdrawal of NATO military installations from France by Apr. 1967. (France is still not a full member of NATO) De Gaulle continuously obstructed American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion.
America’s involvement in Vietnam followed decades of conflict between the French and the Vietnamese (and finally the French pulled out completely and left us holding the bag). The genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot was a product of French higher education; even the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq can be traced to French influences.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.
Daniel,I'm not saying that you are a misguided voter. And actually I am not planning on voting for Kerry either. However, I cannot put Bush back in office. The man does not have the ability to be the leader of the "free" world. The civil liberties of the US citizens are under attack. He wants to clasify POW as enemy combatants so the Red Cross and the Geneva convention don't apply. He wants to produce new nuclear weapons. He has pulled out of some major treaties. He tells our allies and the united nations that if they don't stand behind us we are just going to do what we want anyway. There is no accountability in this administration.
However, Bush is very good morally. But really he is only good on one moral issue, abortion. He is opposed to gay marriage, however supports civil unions. That just doesn't make the news. That is exactly Kerry's postition. He's good on stem cell research. But horrible on the death penalty.
Kerry is very good politically. Basically he is going to reverse some of the major political short falls of Bush. However this doesn't mean that he is going to pull out of Iraq. Since that would produce a nightmare. Politically Kerry has a lot more to offer. His problem is that he is horrible morally. Abortion, stem cell research are his big moral problems. He is like Bush on gay marriage. And is good on the death penalty.
So really it boils down to what do you care about more. Moral issues or what the US does politically.
It's just to bad that we can't find a politician that cares about both. We need a good pro-life Democrat. Maybe Ray Flynn should run for president.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.
How appalling, Steve; that it's precisely for his leadership and honesty you refuse to re-elect Bush. The Patriot Act was passed unanimously by Congress; and Bush signed it. That Act has enabled our country to stave off any further terror activity in our homeland. You say the civil liberties of the US citizens are under attack. Don't you mean the ''civil liberty of Muslim fundamentalists'' --?It's pursuit and protection against our sworn enemy that has made our government cautious again. You prefer ''liberties'' at the cost of our lives. Bush is certain to be re-elected. The country is alarmed by everything that's happened; and only Bush has made a difference. Our past administration played footsie with the chubby intern all day as terrorists mounted attack after attack on Americans and other states in the free world. That's what you have to offer, Steve. More clueless politicians from the left. You don't want leadership. You want ''statecraft,'' and more begging at the UN doorstep. Strength is not your forte. That's why you reject George W. Bush. --Let's repeat it for you Steve: Bush is certain to be re-elected.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2004.
Please pardon my difficulties with your name, SCOTT. You sound very much like the other ''contributor'' in these threads, the clueless Steve. I sincerely hope you have more on the ball than he has. My remark about not ''wanting strength'' is only directed at him. If you don't appreciate it either, I feel sorry for you. BUSH has strength.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2004.
Eugene,I agree that the Democratic party should have done more to stop these actions before they started. And yes the playing footsie with under the table was a big problem.
However I don't really believe that Bush has made us any safer than we were. I don't think that Iraq was an iminent threat. North Korea was an iminent threat, and had been for many years. I agree with Afganistan and we should have finished up there first.
On the Clinton side of things, he found it more important to build unity in the world, so if we (the U.S.) ever got into trouble, we could have some help. The UN is a very important institution that the US should not just abandon when it is convenient. The UN was formed so that was would be less. To quote a movie, "In the Nuclear Age, the true enemy is war itself" (Crimson Tide). We should avoid war at all costs. And that is where the UN, The Hague, the World Court, the EU, the African Union, the American Union and so on are for. These are hugely important institutions that this president has chosen to ignore.
Now I agree that we mustn't let these institutions just run wild with there limits on the US, I think that we must give them some say in world affairs. A different perspective on things is not always bad.
On the issue of the Patriot Act, this is a horrible piece of legislation. Not only does it take away liberties garantied by the Constitution, it could turn the US into a police state. Examples, anyone accused of being a terrorist does not have the opertunity to consult a lawyer, can be held indefinetly without being charged. It suspends the Rit of Habius Corpus. And the Government can't be sued over it. So who do we define as a terrorist. Now, a person that blows up buildings; later, a person who disagrees with the government. This is Stalinism. Read 1984. That will give you an interesting perspective.
Also Bush has made it incredibly hard for people that would like to invest in the US. Think about how long it is going to take to get a visa, 10 months. Who is going to wait on that. People will just take their business somewhere else.
I'll admit that Bush has made us safer in some respects. But I don't agree that we should have to through out the Constitution to do it.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 20, 2004.
Scott,Please slow down. How are we suppose to know were your coming from with President Bush? You just made a few different statements to Eugene in your last post:
For instance, you started off in your 2nd or third sentence and said"...However I don't realy believe that Bush has made us safer than we are...."
And in your last paragraph of the same post you said,"..I'll admit that Bush has made us safer..."
Will the 'real Scott' please stand up?
-- - (David@excite.com), June 20, 2004.
Dear Scott:
Do we pay taxes so that the UN, The Hague, the World Court, the EU, the African Union, the American Union, et al-- should decide when we're in danger? Decide for America when to pursue and defeat our enemy? Are we America, or not?And about Bush: you don't think ''he's made us safer''. You could find any sixty good men, and they would not make you safer against a biological or chemical or nuclear weapon. Bush cannot ''make me safer.'' That isn't what we vote for, a Super Hero. You shouldn't expect the man you vote for to make you safer.
You vote for leadership. For strength of character and conviction; a man who keeps his word. It might well turn out Bush did NOT keep us safe from disasters. Heaven only knows. But waiting on approval from our indifferent ''allies'' Germany, France & Russia is the wrong strategy. The most deadly thing for us now is delay.
The enemy won't wait or keep still. He looks for the soft underbelly of our country. Once he infiltrates our defenses, it only takes a trunkful of Sarin or Anthrax to destroy our largest cities. They mean to do it. You keep looking away as if it weren't possible. You underestimate the enemy; Bush doesn't. Rumsfeld doesn't. We're at war. If you doubt what I'm saying, just pause a second and think of Sept. 11, 2001-- No one ever thought these fanatics were capable or even inclined to that kind of barbarous atrocity. Until they showed us. They're thinking of doing something like that again-- and again, if we go soft. That's how come true leadership is in demand now. Not pie in the sky. We have to elect the best leader. RE-elect him. Politics have nothing to do with it. Clinton was a fine politician. Kerry is purely political. They smell to high heaven.
Bush acts. He keeps his word. He said on Sept. 20, 2001-- We have to hunt them all down. That's precisely what he proceeded to do. He kept his word.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 20, 2004.
Well Eugene I am glad that Bush wasn't president during the Cuban Missle Crisis because we would all be dead. I am glad that we had a good Democrat that decided to use is brain instead of his braun to get the missles out of Cuba. Bush would have just nuked them.And if Bush is so great then why are so many American dying at this war? Strength of character? He went in without a plan because he rushed in. He didn't listen to the rest of the world and now people I know have to die.
No one knew what they were capable of? Tom Clancy seemed to know. He even put it in a book. Terrorits running airplanes into buildings. It isn't that far fetched.
But now, instead of allowing our allies to help us keep America safe. We shun them because they don't agree. The US is not an island. We need the help of our allies. The US will fall from a scared isolationist attitude. Mark my words. But of course you won't be around to see it. America is the New Rome. Just watch.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
Also Eugene, have we forgotten what preemptive stricks do? Do you remember the Bay of Pigs? Remember what happend when we didn't listen to our allies? We got into the Vietnam war, even though France told us not to go. But we didn't want to look weak infront of the Russians.Preemptive stricks aren't even apart of our military tradition. Our tradition is Fire When Fired Upon.
Notice some things from Bush senior. Didn't go and attack Iraq without a huge military force. Not just the US and Britan. We also had Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, Germany, Russia and a host of other nations helping us. But guess what Bush senior didn't do. He didn't get Sadam. It's not Clinton's fault. It's Bush's fault.
I wonder what you are going to say when Bush attacks another country.
It's also interesting that you don't agree with the Holy Father on this. You are starting to sound like Kerry.
On the other hand, France and Russian didn't want to attack because they were selling weapons to Iraq. So should we attack France and Russia for aiding terrorists?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
Dear Scott:
Could you explain what a preemptive strick is?I recall the Cuban missile crisis. A no-brainer; Kennedy did the only thing open to him. He bluffed. Strange you refer this way to him:
''Glad that we had a good Democrat that decided to use his brain;'' --and go on to refer to his most disgraceful error, the Bay of Pigs fiasco. What was he-- smart or stupid? Bush wasn't present, so don't drag him into that.
Scott: ''If Bush is so great then why are so many Americans dying at this war?'' Here's a reply for you,
Nobody says he's GREAT. There are NOT ''so many'' Americans dying in Iraq. The number is truly not large for a fully-launched war on foreign soil. The number of dead on September 11, 2004 is triple the ones in Iraq; and only about 3/4ths were battle casualties. A fourth were accidental, friendly fire, and recently, terror attacks. You only THINK it's so many. And you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing but hot air.
We would prefer NO deaths; who wouldn't? But in war you give and take. The Iraqis have died by multiple thousands to our few good men. So--
Think up a better way to smear George W Bush. Haven't you got a thinking cap? (Strick!)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2004.
More people die in drunk driving accidents every year than in most wars we've had. Think on that a minute.As to whom to vote for, our pastor wrote in the bulletin that it isn't as clear as just abortion itself, and basically said that we should consider policies that perhaps lead to abortions in the first place, like social programs (or lack thereof). In other words, I read into it that we should vote in the other guy. But that's me.
I don't care what "social programs" you have, you will always have abortions as long as people put their own desires ahead of the life of an innocent child. We already make it very easy for people to have children and be on the dole.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 21, 2004.
Well Eugene I am glad that Bush wasn't president during the Cuban Missle Crisis because we would all be dead.JFK faced Kruschev down and forced him to turn his ships around. The only president I know in the last 35 years to do anything like this is our current President Bush. Even Reagan was not so bold.
-Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
Eugene,Quit being an ass about my dyslexia. Christian charity?
But notice that Kennedy faced down Krustef without starting a nuclear war. Bush would start one in a heart beat because the man can't use his brain. Hence his C's in Grad School.
And Eugene I guess that you don't care. So what if a few people die. Who cares that in the Past 100 years more people have died because of war that in almost every century combined since Christ lived.
Eugene you can act this way about the soldiers dying beacause you won't be going to war and you don't know anyone in it. I actually have friends in this war. Some people that I have spent my entire life growing up with. And now they are in a sensles war because our stupid president can't hold back his guns.
However I guess I can't argue against madness. Security that at the cost of the constitution. 1984. Read it. If you have a brain you will see the US in it.
In the nuclear age, the real enemy is war itself.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
''On the other hand, France and Russian didn't want to attack (Iraq) because they were selling weapons to Iraq.'' Scott. --OH? I thought it was merely because they were bowing to the Pope.They may not have sold weapons. But they were taking bribes from Saddam. Until you get your ducks all in some kind of row, Scott--
Save the preaching.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 21, 2004.
Hence his C's in Grad School. His 'grad school' was Harvard Business School. I wish we had many more presidents who were smart enough to get C's at Harvard Business School!The rest of what you wrote was pure speculation. And since Bush has not used neucular weapons against anyone even though the US has been attacked, I would say your speculation is way off.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
GT, your pastor needs to read what the Bishops came out with last week. I think it is pretty clear that your pastor is wrong.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
Bill,Do you have any idea of what you are talking about with HBS? A C is like an F in undergraduate. Grad Students are expected to maintain at least a 3.0, which is a B. Less than that, you are waisting your time. in 2000 The average GPA was a 3.5. The lowest was a 2.6. A 2.6 is a B-. I about fell out of my chair when you said that we need more Cs at HBS. Yes more mediocre business people!
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
Well, then, Scott, I guess you got his grades wrong then, because he did earn his MBA from HBS. I guess you owe the President an apology then. ;)
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 21, 2004.
This man is an authority on everything from national security to education to God's own blessing.Scott really wants us to believe nobody knows much except him. He ought to look up Isl am;
A false religion that indoctrinates hatred for all infidels, holy war, and submission to Allah and his prophet. Most of all hatred.
Scott believes this is no great problem. He came here to teach Catholics that we have no need for allegiance, (it's chauvinistic), no quarrel with a sect already to blame for many thousands dead in our homeland, and no need for armed forces. Scott presumes to know God's divine Will because he has read the Beatitudes. Only he, in almost 20 centuries, has figured everything out. Catholics who went to war in the past left their faith behind; knowing no Christian teachings. Not as Scott teaches them, anyway.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2004.
"This man is an authority on everything from national security to education to God's own blessing. "Scott really wants us to believe nobody knows much except him. He ought to look up Isl am; "A false religion that indoctrinates hatred for all infidels, holy war, and submission to Allah and his prophet. Most of all hatred. "Scott believes this is no great problem. He came here to teach Catholics that we have no need for allegiance, (it's chauvinistic), no quarrel with a sect already to blame for many thousands dead in our homeland, and no need for armed forces. Scott presumes to know God's divine Will because he has read the Beatitudes. Only he, in almost 20 centuries, has figured everything out. Catholics who went to war in the past left their faith behind; knowing no Christian teachings. Not as Scott teaches them, anyway."Now I have to answer all of this worthless grip. I have looked up Islam, even studied it. Have you ever studied it or do just buy into what they say on the news? Fundamentalist Muslims make up 1% of all Muslims. More people have been killed because of Christianity than because of Islam. Islam actually teaches exceptance of Jews and Christians. They are "people of the book." But you just don't hear that from extremists. Islam was originally set up like Judaism. But later changed when the Jews betrayed their allegence to Muhammad. Islam also teaches that Christ is the greatest of the prophets until Muhammad came around. Christ is also the one who will judge the world. Mary is also extremely important to Islam. Ever hear of the Apparition of Fatima? Do you know who Fatima is? She is one of Muhammads wives. The city was named for her by the Muslims. Jihad or holy war is actually a straggle with Satan and immorality. How is submission to Allah a problem? Even the Pope recoginizes Allah as the one true God. The God of Abraham. They just don't see the fullness of God in Jesus like Christians.
Christianity used to breed hatred too. Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, pogroms? Is this more selective reading of history for you.
But of course we Americans are the only ones that can fight in self defence. Nevermind the fact that the Muslims are also fighting is self defence. But they don't have that right. Just us Americans.
No I don't know the will of God but I guess the Pope doesn't either Eugene. He also said that we shouldn't go to war. Or did you forget that? Your allegence is to America and not your religion. You sound like John Kerry. Selecting which teachings of the Church to believe.
Oh and by the way Eugene what is Isl am? I thought it was Islam. But I guess that I don't know anything. Isl am!
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
Eugene,Have you ever read 1984? I'll give you the plot. It's about a man that lives in a state that has no freedoms. You cannot think or act differently. The government indoctinates people into thinking how they think. If the government says that 2+2=5 than it does. Thinking differently gets you killed. A man starts to question. But is caught and then brainwashed into thinking the way the government tells him.
This is exactly what you are doing. You take what the government says blindly, without question. So if the President told you that France is helping terrorits and then we attacked you wouldn't care. You can't see past the retoric. Blind allegence to your government. And eventually one day the government will take away your freedoms, but you won't realize it until you are arrested for going against the government.
What I also think is funny is that you can't attack my arguments so you resort to calling me names and saying that I speak for God and yada yada yada. Crazy huh? Attack my argument, or at least try. You haven't been doing a very good job yet.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
How about keeping your lame impressions of 1984 to yourself?This is Christopher Hitchens, refuting Michael Moore who quoted Orwell out of context, touting his new movie:
There'is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, But if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval, but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.''
And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: (TO YOU< STEVE:) How wise is it to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence? It's ridiculous to remind people of Orwell (1984) if you are engaged in a sophomoric rewriting of recent history. Last part is mine.
You know NOTHING about Is lam. either. I write Is lam, to keep out a thousand lurkers who use the word in Google searches not having to do anything with our forum. You invited all of them in, using the connected spelling. Par for YOU; a loose cannon rolling around the poop-deck. It's what we would have expected of such brains.
Fatima the CITY has NOTHING to do with what we're discussing. You go out of your way to spread confusion. The sign of a wasted intellect.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2004.
Eugene,How about waking up in the real world and not the idealized world. You know nothing about Islam. Don't think that you do. You are just a sheltered little american that thinks that he knows about the world. Also a Christian that thinks he knows Christianity but clearly can't stand Christian ideals. You even go against our Pope, who know 1000 times as much as you or I will ever hope too? I think it's interesting how you haven't defended yourself on that point. Should Catholics fight in a war and approve a war that the Vicar of Christ didn't approve?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
That quote from Christopher is very interesting. Perhaps it is a bit misguided though. The resentment is toward the US and Britian is because these two countries start the most wars.However, I don't buy into that camp that he is talking about, since I am not a pacifist. I don't mind wars for self-defense (Afganistan) or human aid (Kosovo). I do mind wars that are done because we need to protect ourselves. There are other ways of doing that without starting wars. Now if we would have gone to war because we needed to stop the Kurds from being wiped out by the Shiites then ok. But we couldn't do that 10 years after the fact.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
"You know NOTHING about Is lam. either."Defend that please. Show me that I don't know anything. At least I back up my statements with more than nothing. All of my info that I gave about Jesus and Mary and Fatima were to show a little of my limited knowledge of Islam.
Show me that you know more and that I don't know anything. A statement with no defense is a wasted statment.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
Oh yeah, Kosavo was all about human aid. That's why we targeted school and hospitals and paid rival factions to slaughter each other. That's why the killing only intensified once we got there. That's why Milosavek remained in power until the poeple ousted him WITHOUT OUR HELP.An American news outlet...lying to us? Imagine that...
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 22, 2004.
Did you bother to check your facts? No-- you never do.you are simply mistaken, but you're too proud to see your errors. It's very simple.
You say something, We toss it. You have no authority or sources to back you up. Who cares if you hate George W. Bush? Not me. You can stew in your own bile after he's re-elected.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2004.
Scott says:''You even go against our Pope, who knows 1000 times as much as you or I will ever hope too,'' Reply:I do NOT go ''against'' our Pope. He most certainly did not say we were unjustly making war. He only warned about possible consequences; the ones that HAVEN'T transpired. He disapproves of war altogether; but the Church does not; JUST WAR is doctrinally supportable. (Something you haven't the concept of.) As for his ''knowing'' 1,000 things more than us, --Come off it, guv'nor. Who told you that? He should easily know more than YOU ever will.
''I think it's interesting how you haven't defended yourself on that point. Should Catholics fight in a war and approve a war that the Vicar of Christ didn't approve?'' Reply to obnoxious question:
If the war is just, and the intent is not sinful, YES. The Vicar of Christ doesn't have us for marionettes, like a puppeteer. He is entrusted with matters of faith and morality. Not our enlistment or deployment in a just war.
If His Holiness knew for sure the war in question was immoral and unjust, that would be his declaration; and we would be held liable under pain of sin.
Nothing like that was declared by John Paul II. Therefore, acting in good conscience we have nothing at all to confess as regards our 'disobedience''. It's all in your mind, and easily dismissed by a thinking man.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2004.
P.S., Steve,
''Defend that please. All of my info that I gave about Jesus and Mary and Fatima were to show a little of my limited knowledge of Islam.''You hit that right on the head. LIMITED.
By what authority do you jump up here educating others, about Fatima, Is lam, or Iraq? --- ZERO.
Your knowledge of Is lam is negligible. I know enough about it to make you cry Uncle. But my purpose here is not to be a headmaster. Everything you've seen of me was arrived at by common sense.
Muslims have been killing Christians for centuries. That's all you need know about Is lam. It's a patently false religion, started by a false prophet, and his daughters don't matter to Catholics any more than a hill of beans. That includes your pet, Fatima. The fact our Pope was gracious to some of the madmen he met is irrelevant. It doesn't make them reasonable, nor will it save them. They deny the Father and the Son. (A passage in scripture describes Antichrist as just THAT.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2004.
- /
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2004.
Eugene, you have showed yourself time and again to be a fanatical, reactionary, intolerant lunatic, and a jingoist to boot. I thought we would be in agreement on the topic of Kosavo, since you claim to possess some degree of caring for human suffering, and you hate Clinton so much, but apparently not. I wasn't even ranting about Bush that time. I was ranting about Clinton (yes, anti-bush is also anti- clinton). You haven't refutd anything I said. You just categoricaly denied my right to say anything.If you had your way, we'd probably go into the Middle East and "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", as Anne Coulter so eloquently put it.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
"Did you bother to check your facts? No-- you never do."What would this be in reference to? I always back up what I am saying with facts. If not, than it is just a waste of my time. You on the other hand don't back anything up. YOu just make statement and make people believe that they are true by the retoric that you use. It is a common practice among people who are losing an argument. They always always stop attacking the argument and start attacking the person. For an older "wiser" person Eugene, you aren't very good at arguing.
"you are simply mistaken, but you're too proud to see your errors. It's very simple."
I am not too proud to admit when I am mistaken. When I have made a mistake and it is pointed out I will admit it.
But what have I been mistaken on? Bush's grades? Nope. Straight C student in his Undergrad and his Grad work.
Have I been mistake about Islam? Nope. It is supposed to be a peaceful religion but 1% of the people take it to the extremes. But you think that is the entire population. You defend yourself against Anti-Catholicism but you don't defend against anti-Islam. I hate injustice. Even when it is against a group that I don't believe in. YOu don't though. If they don't agree with you than they are part of the "axis of evil." Wake up Eugene. Come and argue with me when you get a brain.
"You say something, We toss it. You have no authority or sources to back you up. Who cares if you hate George W. Bush? Not me. You can stew in your own bile after he's re-elected."
Of course you toss what I say. You don't want to believe it. Who needs authority? My opinions are mine, unless you think that only morons like you should be allowed to have opinions.
And where is your authority? Because you have been here longer? Becuase you are older? Because you are a Republican? Do you have a doctorate? A masters? What are your sourses. Your sourses are your own bigotry and hatred for people that are different than you are. You are part of the people that I will spend a lifetime condemning. I hate bigotry, can't stand it or anyone that espouses it. Our religion teaches love, unconditionally and without praise. You only love when it is appropriate. Try loving those who hate you. "Love your enemies" (Matt 5:44).
Obviously you care that I don't like George Bush. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing with me. How do you know that he is going to be reelected. According to the polls right now, Bush is way behind Kerry. Out of 17 Polls Kerry won in 11, Bush won in 4 and there was a tie in 2. There was 1 in favor of Bush that was withing the margin of error and 4 of Kerry's.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Scott,
I'm not sure where your getting your polling information. Polls this early in the race still don't mean much, but anyway, check here: http://www .realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.htmlNational 2004 Presidential Race Polls
3-Way Race
Bush-Kerry-Nader
Poll
Bush
Kerry
Nader
Spread
RCP Average (6/3 - 6/20)
45.5%
43.2%
5.5%
Bush +2.3
44%
48%
6%
Kerry +4
IBD/TIPP (6/14-6/19)
44%
41%
6%
Bush +3
51%
41%
6%
Bush +10
43%
40%
5%
Bush +3
46%
42%
6%
Bush +4
46%
45%
6%
Bush +1
42%
42%
3%
TIE
42%
48%
4%
Kerry +6
43%
49%
5%
Kerry +6
43%
41%
7%
Bush +2
42%
44%
3%
Kerry +2
45%
46%
3%
Kerry +1
43%
42%
6%
Bush +1
46%
47%
4%
Kerry +1
43%
43%
4%
TIE
46%
46%
4%
TIE
41%
47%
5%
Kerry +6
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Have I been mistake about Islam? Nope. It is supposed to be a peaceful religion but 1% of the people take it to the extremes. But you think that is the entire population. You defend yourself against Anti-Catholicism but you don't defend against anti-Islam. I hate injustice. Even when it is against a group that I don't believe in. YOu don't though. If they don't agree with you than they are part of the "axis of evil." Wake up Eugene. Come and argue with me when you get a brain.Today, Wahhabism is the dominant Islamic tradition on the Arabian penninsula, though its influence is greatly reduced in the rest of the Middle East. As Osama bin Laden comes from Saudi Arabia and is Wahhabi himself, Wahhabi extremism and radical ideas of purity have obviously influenced him considerably. Adherents of Wahhabi Islam do not regard it as simply one school of thought out of many; rather it is the only path of true Islam - nothing else really counts.
Also, even though Wahhabism is a minority position, it has nevertheless been influential for other extremist movements throughout the Middle East. This can be seen with a couple of factors, first of which is al-Wahhab's use of the term jahiliyya to vilify a society which he does not consider pure enough, whether they call themselves Muslim or not. Even today, Islamists use the term when referring to the West and at times even to their own societies. With it, they can justify overthrowing what many might regard as an Islamic state by essentially denying that it is truly Islamic at all.
see: http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_wa hhab.htm
Have there been any polls asking the world's Muslems what they think of Al-Queda?
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Bill,Thanks for the info. I usually get my polling info from Polling Report . It's just a site that I stumbled across one day.
The info on Saudi Arabia is also interesting. Saudi Arabia has been very influential in extremism. This is particularily bad because we the US put the Saudi Royal Family into power. The history of extremism isn't recent though. It grew out of the Middle Ages for Europe. It came out of one school of thought. I'll get the name for you if you want it.
Something needs to be done. But we just can't go and kill everyone just because they think one way or another.
Thanks for the info, Bill.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Thanks for the polling report link. I added it to my favorites. If you want another source, check out: Dales' Electoral College Breakdown 2004. He makes a stab out of doing an analysis.I don't think we should go and kill anyone just because they think one way or another, but some people are plannig on killing us (and we know they will do everything in their power to do so). There is no doubt in my mind that if al-queda got their hands on a nuke they would use it on us. If you want to read something scarry, check out: MEMRI: Iran's Revolutionary Guards Official Threatens Suicide Operations
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Bill,I totally agree with you. So lets go after Al-Qaida, not Iraq.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Too late, Scott. We are in Iraq, and so is Al-Queda. If we leave now, they will turn it into another 'taliban' state. In fact, that is precicely Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's plan. Remember: he is a Jordanian not Iraqi and is currently fighting the Iraqis. He came to Iraq under Saddam's protection before the liberation and started to build his gang. While he was suppose to be having his legs amputated by the way. Which obviously didn't happen so Saddam must have been helping him do something else since he was under the direct protection of Saddam at the time.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
But how do you account for the fact that Congress has not established a link between the two? Even Bush changed what he said. He stated earlier that there was a relationship between Al-Qaida and Iraq. Now he says they had repeated talks, but no relationship.Where is the link?
And also should we attack Iran now? What about Syria, since they are going to levy sactions against us?
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.
Here is the victim who was saying that since I was ''desperate'', I must fall back on name-calling. Steve goes on to brand me a bigot. Something he will always despise.Thanks, Christian Lad. I needed that. You feel enabled on account of this straw dog you set up.
I was honest with you; I don't care a fig what you propose. Whether it's good or bad; because you aren't a valid judge. Is this bigotry? I call it not worrying when I argue with a born trouble-maker. Let him have the rope; he'll just hang himself. I once said you were a fanatic. You returned the favor. We're even.
Over and over you've made plainly false accusations at me. My recourse has been to supress my ego and ignore insults. I let you have the pleasure. Do you ever let your ego rest? Not a chance. Every post you submit is seething with fury at my opinions. You can't back off.
Here lastly you presume to teach me from the scriptures. 'Love your enemy.''
You have a lot of trouble with enemies who face up to you in a forum. Love a person who tells you plainly you're a silly oaf? But how?
You would have to take the words of scripture to heart. For now you'll just accuse them of bigotry. That's the liberal party line. As well as ''fanatical, reactionary, intolerant lunatic, jingoist''; and-- let's not leave out: imperialist. All leftist jargon straight out of your academic playbook. I feel sorry for boys like you. You were brainwashed.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2004.
Eugene,I don't know why you think that your arguements mean anything either. You can't even get my name right.
I wouldn't doubt it if I was a born troublemaker. It wouldn't be the first time. However, when other people are asked why I do this, I most often hear that it is because I don't like injustice. But whatever. I'm not going to debate my character to a man that can't stand a difference of opinion.
I actually thought about your arguments. I gave them much thought. I don't just think about how to rebuke it, but I also use it to evaluate wether my opinion is at all valid and/or right.
Thank you Eugene for a lively and desently intellectually stimulating debate.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.
Scott, this guy apparently conflates everyone who dares disagree with his ravings and who happens to have the initial "S". He also conflates me with "Saddam" and "Satan" . He doesn't even read others' posts, much less reflect on them. I could have told you that it's pointless presenting him with facts and logical arguments. He'll just ignore them and resort to personal abuse, non-sequiturs and self -contradiction. One minute he's calling Islam "A false religion that indoctrinates hatred for all infidels, holy war, and submission to Allah and his prophet. Most of all hatred." The next minute he's claiming that he loves his enemy and protesting that he's NOT a bigot. He claims to be an expert on Islam, yet he thinks "Moor" is synonymous with "muslim". (The Moors are the race who inhabit Morocco. Some of them are Christian.) He pours scorn on the Pope, bishops or anyone else who point out that the war on Iraq fell far short by Catholic "just war" principles; then claims it is in fact HE who is upholding those principles and that others ignore them!Unfortunately his abusive behavior, which would lead to banning from the forum if anyone else did it, is tolerated merely because he has been here a long time and is considered too old to learn manners (not to mention Logic and Catholic moral principles). This forum should be a place for all to learn about and share the Catholic faith, but the continued tolerance of this man's bevior ruins any prospect of this on any thread which he infects with his self- righteous abuse.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 24, 2004.
But how do you account for the fact that Congress has not established a link between the two? Even Bush changed what he said. He stated earlier that there was a relationship between Al-Qaida and Iraq. Now he says they had repeated talks, but no relationship. Where is the link?I don't think anyone questions that there was a link between Al- Qaida and Iraq. What the Democrats kept saying was that Bush said there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. As far as I know, Bush never said that. If you can point to somewhere where he did say that, I would be interested. By the way, the Congressional 9/11 commission's staff (the commission itself has yet to come out with anything) even came out last week and said there was a link between the Al-Qaida and Iraq (what they couldn't find is specific evidence where they collaborated, although they did find many meetings between the two entities).
And also should we attack Iran now? What about Syria, since they are going to levy sactions against us?
Not sure about attacking anyone just now. A democratic Iraq will probably have more influence on the area than any additional invasions. I have heard that Iran may implode from within by the end of the year. Syria sanctions are not grounds for war.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.
Haven't I said correctly; Steve bears false witness against the opposition to his balderdash.''[Eugene] pours scorn on the Pope, bishops or anyone else who point out that the war on Iraq fell far short by Catholic just war principles;'' That's nothing but a lie.
Please show us if you can; where I ''poured scorn'' on any bishop or the Pope.'' On the contrary, I love the Pope. I'm proud of the Pope for having attempted to defuse a bad situation. It should have been Saddam Hussein defusing it, complying with the UN Security Council resolution. He had the opportunity. Meanwhile, I reserve the right to ''pour scorn'' on you and other Goody-Two-Shoes. Because you came here to accuse your brethren of non-existent SINS. but you're wrong.
You maintain ''It's pointless presenting him -- Eugene, the guy too old to learn manners not to mention Logic and Catholic moral principles. (Haha! You're the teacher?) with facts and logical arguments.''
Have you presented FACTS? No. Or LOGICAL ARGUMENTS--? Not very logical; just tiresome. You repeat your silly mantra post after post, never giving any true rebuttals against the JUST WAR in Iraq. Just claiming the Pope disapproved is NOT showing any unjust cause. Please show us why you think this isn't a just cause.
Don't waste the forum's time screaming like some panther passing razor blades. You've gone from absurd to pathetic.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2004.
Scott,
I just saw this article and thought you might be interested in reading it:
Cheney Speaks-- A Weekly Standard exclusive: Vice President Cheney on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. by Stephen F. Hayes
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.
Bill,Maybe I just miss heard the news on CNN. It's possible I guess. Thank you for the articles.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 24, 2004.
"JFK faced Kruschev down and forced him to turn his ships around." (Bill)Bill, what happened to your usually thorough research? I am amazed you repeat this unsubstantiated nonsense, that JFK got Kruschev to drop his plans for the missiles by playing some macho game of chicken. The historical facts are quite the opposite. Kruschev cancelled his plans to place nuke missiles in Cuba because JFK dismantled the nuke missiles he had in Turkey, right on the USSR's border and capable of destroying the heartland cities of Russia. This was one of a series of "confidence-building measures" during 1963 which JFK initiated and to which Kruschev responded, with both sides winding back their confrontation with each other, step by step. JFK's policy was bitterly denounced at the time by hawks who claimed he was leaving the USA vulnerable. But it worked, until JFK was killed and another aggressive Texan gained the White House and reversed the policy. Soon after, the USA and then the USSR had ICBMs capable of attacking each other from their own soil, so the question of placing missiles in third countries became almost irrelevant.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 24, 2004.
I know about the Turkey missles. Still, Kennedy did play a massive game of 'chicken' and he did stare the USSR down and got them to negoiate. The idea of us removing our missles from Turkey was a 'compromise' Kruschev came up with so he could save face. For a timeline look here.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.
Bill, even that link, written by a vehemently pro-military organization, does not support the idea that JFK “played chicken”. As it says, JFK merely stated the obvious, “that any nuclear missile attack from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union and would be responded to accordingly”. This is a far cry from the oft-repeated nonsense that “ JFK threatened to nuke the USSR unless it withdrew the missiles” . As your source states, the USSR canned its Cuban missile plans after JFK signalled his acceptance of Kruschev’s proposal “that the missile installations would be dismantled and personnel removed in exchange for United States assurances that it or its proxies would not invade Cuba”. Kruschev had also demanded that JFK remove the US nukes in Turkey. You may speculate that this was “to save Kruschev’s face”, but the point is JFK DID dismantle them. This was the beginning of the “confidence building measures” which intensified in the summer and fall of 1963. Each unilateral step away from confrontation produced a response:10 June: JFK announced the end of US atmospheric nuclear tests. USSR unusually immediately printed his speech in full and ceased jamming Voice of America.
11 June: In the UN, the USSR withdrew its objection to the Western proposal to send UN observers to communist Yemen.
14 June: The US withdrew its longstanding objection to the seating of the Hungarian delegation at the UN.
15 June: Kruschev broadcast his congratulations to JFK for his speech and announced USSR was ceasing production of strategic bombers.
July: USSR stopped atmospheric nuclear tests.
August: US and USSR sign Treaty of Moscow making the test ban permanent.
September: Treaty ratified by US Senate.
October: JFK lifted embargo on grain to the USSR. US and USSR sign Outer Space Treaty agreeing not to place nuclear weapons in orbit.
November: JFK killed. What a better world we would have today if the above process had been allowed to continue instead of being reversed by subsequent administrations.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.
Now go back and study the wars between the Spanish and Moors, Steve. We refer specifically to the Muslim presence in Spain up until the 15th century. Not Christian Moors. Inform yourself.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2004.
“ JFK threatened to nuke the USSR unless it withdrew the missiles”Hey! I didn't say that, don't put words in anyones mouth, that does not make for a good nor edifying discussion. What happened was that the US Navy embargoed Cuba, something that Kruschev said he would not tolerate, then did tolerate. The Kennedy, using the US Navy, had a face off with Kruschev, and won.
It took a lot of guts on Kennedy's part. It also brought us to the brink of nuclear war. It was a pretty scary time. Kinda like today, now that we have a president who is brave enough to face the terrorists instead of pretending they don't exist.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.
"Now go back and study the wars between the Spanish and Moors, Steve. We refer specifically to the Muslim presence in Spain up until the 15th century. Not Christian Moors. Inform yourself."Yes we have the Inquisition to thank for that. The Catholic Monarchs killing people who used to be Muslims or Jews but later became Christians all in the name of purity. In this case not really religious purity but enthic purity.
And in the late 20th century the King of Spain apologized for what it did to the Jews and Moors when Spain kicked them out of the country.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.
I didn’t mean that YOU said those words Bill, but they are commonly said by those who push the "chicken game" myth. In fact, Kruschev decided to tolerate the embargo after receiving JFK’s assurance that there would be no further attempt to invade Cuba. It wasn't because JFK "scared him off" by being macho.Talking of putting words in others’ mouths, who here is “pretending that terrorists don’t exist” ? I agree it’s a pretty scary time today thanks to our current President. “Brave enough to face the terrorists” ? I don’t see him walking round the mountains on the Afghan/Pakistan border where the terrorists are based. Is it “brave” to send other people’s sons there, then cut and run from Afghanistan when it turned into bad PR for him and send them off on a wild goose chase to settle a score with Saddam instead?
No point bothering a racist with facts, Scott. He even stoops to using the racially incendiary term "Moor-killer" to insult the holy apostle St James, who never killed anyone.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.
How dare you call me a racist? And what FACTS did you ever ''bother'' with?The Moors in Spain were Muslims. like it or not; and they had conquered a Christian nation. It's well known even the French said with disdain, ''Africa ends at the Pyrenees.''
I have no racial bias at all.
Neither did the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabel La Catolica. They drove out a Muslim invader; and YES:
Matamoros is the title given Santiago, Saint James the Apostle. I didn't invent it; it's very common in Spain and Mexico. The Spanish invoked his intercession and protection against the followers of Muhammad in their wars of resistance.
That's why I'm telling you to study that history. Instead of just running off at the mouth bearing false witness once more. It's plain you have merely the conventional flawed understanding of racial injustice. It's a cliche at most to your kind; inculcated in liberal and leftist schools. That's to say frankly, you were brainwashed.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2004.
Steve, I think you are forgetting that sitting by and letting Al-Queda grow without going after them led to 9/11 and the declaration of war on the US by Al-Queda.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 25, 2004.
This guy has gone from irrational to bizarre. He’s spent months excoriating the French, now he tells us he’s not being a racist because the French had the same attitudes he has. Memo: when a race has lived in a country for 800 years, it is no longer “an invader”. Especially when it brought enormous advances in the arts and sciences to Spain and all Europe. Your ignorance of history is matched only by your arrogance. If you studied real history and not a tendentious one-sided story, you wouldn’t be such a racist. It’s strange how the King of Spain, educated under the fascist General Franco’s supervision, has the same “conventional flawed understanding of racial injustice... a cliche at most ... inculcated in liberal and leftist schools....brainwashed”.Bill, the main factor leading ultimately to 9/11 was the lately much- lauded Reagan’s brilliant idea to supply a mountain of modern weaponry to a bunch of ragtag extremist fundamentalist mercenaries led by an unknown called Osama bin Laden, naively thinking they would only use them against Communists.
As for "sitting by and letting Al-Quaeda grow", remember how when Clinton bombed the Al-Quaeda bases in Afghanistan, those who now laud Bush jeered Al-Quaeda was not a threat and that Clinton was only trying to divert attention from his sexual scandals?
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 26, 2004.
Bill, the main factor leading ultimately to 9/11 was the lately much- lauded Reagan’s brilliant idea to supply a mountain of modern weaponry to a bunch of ragtag extremist fundamentalist mercenaries led by an unknown called Osama bin Laden, naively thinking they would only use them against Communists. And Bush Sr. and Clinton pretty much ignored the fact that they subsequently declared war on us.As for "sitting by and letting Al-Quaeda grow", remember how when Clinton bombed the Al-Quaeda bases in Afghanistan, those who now laud Bush jeered Al-Quaeda was not a threat and that Clinton was only trying to divert attention from his sexual scandals?
I will grant you that, but we are at war and what is happening now isn't just 'in the beltway' political banter. Again, all the administrations prior to Bush's left Al-Quaeda alone when they should not have. When I point to Bush and say that he is doing something about them his predecessors didn't, it is both Democratic and Republican predecessors I am pointing to. And the big question now is what do we do in the future so our kids don't have to live with an even bigger mess.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nopsam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.
''Memo: when a race has lived in a country for 800 years, it is no longer “an invader”.'' If it gets expulsed, the country goes back to its ancient faith. You have to break eggs, Stevie; to make omelettes. ''Especially when it broughtenormousSOME advances in arts and sciences to Spain & Europe.'' --OK; we have them still; they weren't thrown out, Steve. We still have them all; without Islam and its false prophet. Um sorry that hurts you so.Your ignorance of history is matched only by your arrogance. (If you say so. Your ignorance is hard to match.)
If you studied real history Bla-blah, blah blah. --If you were a professional historian you'd still have a chip on your shoulder and an axe to grind. You aren't even a fair student of history or you'd already know the truth I've had to expose you to-- about Muslims and about Spanish Catholicism.
Nevertheless, you feel qualified to show off around this forum, calling other folks racists. I NEVER brought up race, YOU did: the least qualified judge of men I've ever met here.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2004.
---
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 26, 2004.
“all the administrations prior to Bush's left Al-Quaeda alone when they should not have...I point to Bush and say that he is doing something about them his predecessors didn't” (Bill)But you’ve admitted Clinton attacked Al-Quaeda (and his critics were NOT confined to the “beltway”). Bush attacked them too, at first . But then it got too hard, so he left a non-elected “Afghan government” in charge of little more than a small area around Kabul, leaving the rest of the country to the criminal warlords and the Taliban/Al-Quaeda, while he went off after Saddam for the two Texas principles: oil and family pride. And don’t tell me attacking Iraq somehow helped to fight Al-Quaeda. Quite the opposite. It allowed them to regroup and gave them thousands more recruits. Iraq’s supposed “links” to Al-Quada, if any, were far less substantial than those of a dozen other countries, notably Iran.
“the big question now is what do we do in the future so our kids don't have to live with an even bigger mess.”
Some things we need to do IMHO to prevent a bigger “mess”:
1. Swallow our pride and go back to co-operating (in the real sense of the word) with other countries especially the other great democracies.
2. Undertake to never again unilaterally and "pre-emptively" attack a country which is not attacking or an imminent threat to us, without consultation with other democracies.
3. Put REAL pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, the No 1 cause of Arab disaffection and Al-Quaeda recruitment. Everybody knows that barring a few details here and there, the solution must involve Israel giving back to the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza. It’s just a question of how many on both sides have to die before this is allowed to happen.
4. Put REAL pressure on Saudi Arabia’s corrupt oligarchy to bring real democratic reforms. One way of doing this would be to show that we are serious about reducing our dependence on oil, through effective promotion of alternative energy sources, punitive taxes on gas-guzzling metal monsters etc.
5. Make the fight against Al-Quaeda a world fight. They are not just enemies of America, they are enemies of all nations. The alleged Al- Quaeda captives should be tried by an international court (as the Nazis were at Nuremberg) not a secret US military one.
6. Reach out to and co-operate with moderate Muslims (the vast majority), instead of demonizing all Muslims and in effect telling them they have to make a choice between the US lifestyle and Al- Quaeda.
''Memo: when a race has lived in a country for 800 years, it is no longer “an invader”.'' If it gets expulsed, the country goes back to its ancient faith.”
Interesting theory, Eugene. What about Africa? When it was ruled by European Christians, its religion was nearly all animist. After the rulers were kicked out, it rejected its "ancient faith" and became overwhelmingly Christian and Muslim. What about America? Europeans have only lived there for 500 years. Should these “invaders” be “repulsed”?
''Especially when it brought enormous SOME advances in arts and sciences to Spain & Europe.'' --OK; we have them still; they weren't thrown out, Steve. We still have them all; without Islam and its false prophet. Um sorry that hurts you so.”
Sounds a lot like the Nazis taking advantage of, and boasting of, the scientific advances brought by Jews but killing the Jews themselves.
“you feel qualified to show off around this forum, calling other folks racists. I NEVER brought up race, YOU did: the least qualified judge of men I've ever met here. “
No, you brought up race, and not for the first time, when you celebrated killing Moors. The Moors are a race, despite your one- dimensional mindset. You call French racism to your aid, even though you proclaimed “40% of Frenchwomen enjoy being prostitutes” simply because you were peeved that Chirac disagreed with Bush over Iraq and because a few idiots vandalized a cemetery. When I see racism I call it racism, hopefully without being uncharitable. You take offense – perhaps it will make you stop and think what you are really saying (not to mention all the unbased insults you offer to me and others). Killing or exiling people because of their race, or their religion, can never be right and is utterly incompatible with Catholic teaching. To call such killing and exiling Christian and to link it to the name of a holy apostle, is a vile perversion of Christianity.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 28, 2004.
Steve,
Clinton may a little show of attacking some camps of Al-Queda. But it was really a pitiful effort. I don’t know any analyst who thinks otherwise.Just to comment a little on your suggestions for what to do now
1. Swallow our pride and go back to co-operating (in the real sense of the word) with other countries especially the other great democracies.
Not sure what ‘cooperating’ means. Other countries are fully engaged in Afghanistan. NATO has been providing security there for over 2 years now. Of course, it is US forces for the most part, because, like it or not, the other great democracies don’t have much in the way of forces they are willing to deploy.
We are seeing Bush trying to engage the EU and NATO this week in Iraq. So, I would say he is doing this.
2. Undertake to never again unilaterally and "pre-emptively" attack a country which is not attacking or an imminent threat to us, without consultation with other democracies.
If Al-Queda was attacking us. And we did consult the other democracies on Iraq (remember, some of them were on Saddam’s payroll).
3. Put REAL pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, the No 1 cause of Arab disaffection and Al-Quaeda recruitment. Everybody knows that barring a few details here and there, the solution must involve Israel giving back to the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza. It’s just a question of how many on both sides have to die before this is allowed to happen.
You need to face the fact that Al-Queda and the other Islamisists don’t want peace with Israel, they want Israel gone.
4. Put REAL pressure on Saudi Arabia’s corrupt oligarchy to bring real democratic reforms. One way of doing this would be to show that we are serious about reducing our dependence on oil, through effective promotion of alternative energy sources, punitive taxes on gas-guzzling metal monsters etc.
We are doing this, but realize that the Islamisists don’t want the same kind of reforms we want. The Islamisists want an Islamic state with Islamic law. What we call ‘reforms’ is a Western idea of reform. In short, we are talking about two competing cultures here.
5. Make the fight against Al-Quaeda a world fight. They are not just enemies of America, they are enemies of all nations. The alleged Al- Quaeda captives should be tried by an international court (as the Nazis were at Nuremberg) not a secret US military one.
I like this idea. Not sure what international laws the Teliban were breaking though for this to work. Terrorists who blow up civilians, sure, but Teliban fighters, no. There would be a legal issue here.
6. Reach out to and co-operate with moderate Muslims (the vast majority), instead of demonizing all Muslims and in effect telling them they have to make a choice between the US lifestyle and Al- Quaeda.
No such choice has been given them by Bush, so I don’t know what you are talking about.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.
Looks like Bush talked NATO into sending another 10,000 to Afganistan for the vote in November: NATO Promises Force of 10,000 During Afghan Vote
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 28, 2004.
Thanks for rebutting the self-styeled expert, Bill. He's too slippery to stop his tongue-wagging, so don't think he won't get back in your face. Look how he answered my post. ''when you celebrated killing Moors. The Moors are a race, despite your one- dimensional mindset.'' . . . I ''celebrated'' killing Moors. Sure. Muslims on the land evangelized by the kinsman of Jesus Christ. --MUSLIMS, my negative friend! Do we kill all Muslims & ''celebrate''--? No; we return the land to our Christian faith; and we give THANKS to God our Almighty Father. We sing the Te Deum. Of course, you've decided this is racism. YET; I would certainly not stop a sister from marrying a Muslim, unless I knew he was bound to enslave her. Or unless he refused the Catholic faith in his house.But NOT on account of his race, Steve. If a black man shows true love for my sister; (not just trying to score on her) and she loves him:
I haven't any right to interfere. It would be an injustice. There's a difference, Sir; between ''racism'' as you think of it, --and RACIAL INJUSTICE. I'm opposed to all injustice; and that means racial injustice too. You use the race card only as a lash to beat someone who opposes Muslim fundamentalism and fanaticism. I would take a Christian Moor into my home, Or an Arab of good will. But if our country is threatened by militant jihadist Muslims, they have chosen to become my enemies. That's our current WAR against these middle east terror cells. We will force them to desist; and they will learn to respect us. No matter what Mohammed teaches them. THE MOORS learned.
One thing sticks out about this enemy. The Spanish monarchs knew it well. We now know; they only respect FORCE.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2004.
This narrow-minded boy says: I know racism when I see it, and: ''To call such killing and exiling Christian, and to link it to the name of a holy apostle, is a vile perversion of Christianity.''The apostle is linked in historical narrative, Steve. You are then calling all Spanish and their descendents vile, and perverted. Why not throw in all Hungarians, who fought the Islamic invasions of Hungary? Ot Italians, or any number of Christian nations of the past?
Because your view is the pygmy's point of view. Where have you learned all your choice sermons? From the cradle of ''diversity''-- our liberalized, politically correct professors? Have you swallowed the entire course? Militant feminism, with abortion rights, & open hatred of men? Or gay ''rights''--? And free condoms? Or the banning of religious expression on campus; (except for Hare Krishna, of course) the whole package? I'm sure this is fine with you. Just as wonderful as candle-light vigils. The proper defense of your country; HEY-- That's racism!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2004.
“Steve, Clinton may a little show of attacking some camps of Al- Queda. But it was really a pitiful effort.” (Bill)Agreed it wasn't much really. But you said Clinton “left Al- Quaeda alone” and “pretty much ignored the fact that they declared war on us”.
“2. Undertake to never again unilaterally and "pre-emptively" attack a country which is not attacking or an imminent threat to us... Al-Queda was attacking us.” AL-QUAEDA was attacking us (or at least it attacked us 2 years earlier and was probably planning more). IRAQ was not attacking us, had never, and would never have attacked us. Even if he ever had somehow gained the capacity to attack us, Saddam is not stupid enough to do it.
“Al-Queda and the other Islamisists don’t want peace with Israel, they want Israel gone.”
And if Israel and Palestine come to an agreement, the whole Arab world will see that Israel does not have to be gone for the Palestinians to have peace and freedom, and Al-Quaeda and the other terrorist groups will lose the basis of their support.
“5. Make the fight against Al-Quaeda a world fight. They are not just enemies of America, they are enemies of all nations. The alleged Al- Quaeda captives should be tried by an international court (as the Nazis were at Nuremberg) not a secret US military one. I like this idea. Not sure what international laws the Teliban were breaking though for this to work. Terrorists who blow up civilians, sure, but Teliban fighters, no. There would be a legal issue here. “
Sure, but not half as thorny as the legal issue of claiming legitimacy for trying them in a secret US military court. Let alone locking them up virtually incommunicado and with virtually no rights for two years, without being charged with any crime, yet claiming they aren’t POWs either so the Geneva Convention does not apply. “Taliban fighters” can’t be charged with a crime in any court, if they were just fighting in their country’s army, no matter how repulsive its government policies were. German soldiers in WW2 weren't tried at Nuremberg, unless they committed genocide and other atrocities.
Oh and another vital thing the US would have to do is to sign up to the International Criminal Court, instead of telling other countries “our soldiers are above the law, but anyone who fights against us will be vigorously prosecuted”.
“6. Reach out to and co-operate with moderate Muslims (the vast majority), instead of demonizing all Muslims and in effect telling them they have to make a choice between the US lifestyle and Al- Quaeda. No such choice has been given them by Bush,”
Not in so many words by Bush himself, but that’s his message between the lines: “if you’re not with us you’re against us” etc, and his supporters have spelt it out very clearly.
Eugene just becomes more and more bizarre. Now “racial injustice” is wrong but “racism” is OK, even praiseworthy and Christian. He claims my condemnation of historical Spanish racism offends all Spaniards and their monarchs. King Juan Carlos is so "proud" of this sad chapter in Spain’s history that he profusely apologized for it. Anyone who has seen my posts in this forum knows I unequivocally condemn abortion in all cases, as I do with racism. And no amount of misinformed mudthrowing will deter me from condemning either. It's not a matter of being "liberalized" or "politically correct" or enthroning "diversity". It's a matter of basic Catholic moral teaching. You don't kill or exile people because of their race or religion. It's just plain wrong. Anyone who endorses it, and claims an apostle endorses it, is very far from the Catholic Church's position.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 29, 2004.
“IRAQ was not attacking us, had never, and would never have attacked us. Even if he ever had somehow gained the capacity to attack us, Saddam is not stupid enough to do it.You forget that it was just made public that Russia warned the US a number of times after 9/11 that Saddam was actively making plans to attack the US. You are also forgetting that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41.
“Al-Queda and the other Islamisists don’t want peace with Israel, they want Israel gone.” And if Israel and Palestine come to an agreement, the whole Arab world will see that Israel does not have to be gone for the Palestinians to have peace and freedom, and Al-Quaeda and the other terrorist groups will lose the basis of their support.
Don’t hold your breath, Palestinians also want Israel gone. But even on the long shot that they would sue for peace it doesn’t matter, Al-Quaeda wants Israel gone. By the way they would NEVER sue for peace with Saddam funding the Palestinian terrorist groups.
Sure, but not half as thorny as the legal issue of claiming legitimacy for trying them in a secret US military court. Let alone locking them up virtually incommunicado and with virtually no rights for two years, without being charged with any crime, yet claiming they aren’t POWs either so the Geneva Convention does not apply. “Taliban fighters” can’t be charged with a crime in any court, if they were just fighting in their country’s army, no matter how repulsive its government policies were. German soldiers in WW2 weren't tried at Nuremberg, unless they committed genocide and other atrocities. Oh and another vital thing the US would have to do is to sign up to the International Criminal Court, instead of telling other countries “our soldiers are above the law, but anyone who fights against us will be vigorously prosecuted”.
Whatever, lawyers will work all that out. In the meantime, terrorists will continue to behead any American they can capture irregardless. These guys are playing by any Geneva Convention rules.
Take Care,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 29, 2004.
''You don't kill or exile people because of their race or religion. It's just plain wrong. Anyone who endorses it, and claims an apostle endorses it, is very far from the Catholic Church's position.'' . . . IS THAT A FACT?This paragon of virtue never looks at himself. He judges the speck in a neighbor's eye, falling all over his own plank.
When you go to Spain, Steve, as I've gone, try a quick visit to Santiago Compostela, the shrine of Saint James.
You'll see great marble pillar in the entrance; it cannot be avoided. In the pillar is a smoothly hollowed out hand. It's been worn into the stone by millions of pilgrims' hands, one hand at a time, going back into medieval history. It's the custom to put our own hands into this imprint and pray before entering. Every pilgrim that passes has a handprint in there. --Saint Francis of Assisi made his own palm imprint; and I'm sure thousands of other Catholic saints as well. I can tell you it's a humbling thought, as you enter, knowing the many glorious souls now in heaven who passed before you. Under the main altar is the tomb of the holy apostle. It's a wonderful chamber, and Saint james' bones rest there inside a silver coffer. One of the many sacred works of art close by is one extraordinary polychrome bass-relief sculpture. A figure of Santiago Matamoros; very large; mounted on a white charger, with great sword upraised and many soldiers around the horse, some in combat, some falling. They are Moors.
It's an early work of art likely dating back some centuries. Probably not as far back as Saint Francis, we realize. But for sure it has been seen by many Popes of the Catholic Church. No one fails to understand the meaning of this beautiful tableau taken from Spain's historic traditions. Not John Paul II, I feel certain.
Why didn't any Pope take your silly point of view about the saint's Spanish tradition, Steve? Nor the many canonized saints who passed by? Nor anybody at all-- except this one, priggish, superciious and ignorant man-- Steve555555555--&5 more?You can't answer that. You shouldn't; because we aren't in this forum to observe with reverence your pontifications and mirthless wisdom. Just keep it to yourself, My Lad. One day you may question Saint James in person-- hopefully. Surely HE will vindicate you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2004.
“You are also forgetting that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41” (Bill)12 years earlier. Hardly an imminent invasion. The US tried to assassinate Castro countless times. Logically that means you would think it morally justified if Castro assembled a “Coalition of the willing” countries to invade and conquer the US.
“Palestinians also want Israel gone”
Some of them do, because that’s the only way they can see themselves getting a peaceful country. But if they saw a real possibility to have a country alongside Israel (or join in a Bosnia-style confederation) they would be more than happy with that.
“Al-Quaeda wants Israel gone.”
And we would be in a much better position to ensure they couldn’t achieve that aim if we had concentrated on fighting Al-Quaeda instead of stimulating them and wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars fighting Iraq.
“they would NEVER sue for peace with Saddam funding the Palestinian terrorist groups.”
Saddam CLAIMED to be sending $50,000 to the bereaved family of each dead Palestinian suicide bomber. That’s a very different thing to “funding Palestinian terrorist groups” . And I haven’t seen any evidence that any of this money was actually delivered. Even if it was, I doubt if most of the families would even accept it, since most of them say they had no idea their son was a suicide bomber and that they would have opposed him doing it if they had known.
“These guys are {not} playing by any Geneva Convention rules.”
So you say neither should we, and just descend to the law of the jungle? I thought we were talking about MORALITY.
“He judges the speck in a neighbor's eye, falling all over his own plank.” (Eugene)
I judge no-one, but if you would be so kind as to point out what my “plank” sin or error is, I will try to remove it.
“One day you may question Saint James in person-- hopefully. Surely HE will vindicate you.”
I’m sure he will. But even if he doesn’t, I’ll have company in Purgatory with the Pope and the King of Spain who also condemned and apologized for the terrible persecution of the Spanish Moors and Jews; while Heaven fills with those who see it as a virtue to slaughter and expel anyone who dares belong to a different race or religion.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 30, 2004.
Thanks for clarifying your present insanity. You prove that fanaticism is alive and well right amidst those who are living in freedom. Even in our Church.Since you've never had to suffer an invasion of Muslim populations or any heretical sect pushing you off your property, you feel quite secure in your sactimony.
You are guilty of these sins:
Bearing false witness against another Christian repeatedly, by imputing racial injustice to him, and calling him a war-monger. Both outright lies, here in this site. The sin of contumacy; perversely assuming supremacy even against the most obvious evidence. (A venial sin, maybe; unless inspired by PRIDE, or by ENVY of another.) I sincerely offer you my forgiveness for both. I haven't exhibited either one of these faults (yet) during this debate. I've had to point out your ignorance, but not from malice, I assure you. For any more sins of my own I ask God's & your forgiveness. I stand confidently by every statement I've made even if it's rejected by ignorant men. That's how a Christian ought to show his holy faith. --Why don't you learn?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2004.
Dear Frank D,
This thread started on the 18th of June; you titled it, ''The Moral Vote this september...young voter needs help! (It comes in November.) ''I've only persevered at the impossible task of correcting Steve against his will, because I took your opening post seriously. It seemed to me then, and does now, important that a man your age should get the best guidance and direction possible, coming up to the election. I am a 66 year old Republican voter; determined to do what I can to re-elect the President. There's not much else we can do, Frank, hoping to further our national security. We have an implacable enemy working around the globe to destroy our country and other western countries. Fundamentalist Islam.
The party of the Left is incapable of even practical leadership, much less moral integrity; so I'm anxious to make you-- and others who might chance upon this page,
Realize how important your votes are this year. I hope you'll read and re-read the posts I've contributed to the cause here in this thread. And I hope you'll help us re-elect responsible leadership for our nation. Do NOT allow yurselves to be distracted by the fringe activity around our war on terror. That is, the misguided few like Steve. It's peace we are trying to secure for our people. Peace through strength.
The strongest nation on earth today still has faith in our God; who provides us with leaders of faith and constancy during times of trial. Judge carefully who you'll vote for, and may God give you Good Counsel. Through Jesus Christ Our Lord; Amen.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2004.
Eugene,So everybody supports Bush except a "misguided few", huh? Problem is, if 45% support Kerry, and six support Nader, that makes the "misguided few" a "misguided majority", doesn't it?
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 30, 2004.
We will take what we can get, Anti--- Don't count your chickens.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2004.
It’s obvious where the insanity and fanaticism lie. Even the “usual suspects” haven’t supported you on this latest wacky idea of yours. I have no need to “impute” racism and warmongering, you’ve spewed out plenty of both. All of us “ignorant men” (i.e everybody except you) will just have to agree to disagree with your statements that 40% of Frenchwomen are happy to be prostitutes, that it’s good and Christian to kill and exile people because of their race or religion, etc, etc.If you see your mission in life as pressing new voters to vote Republican, perhaps you should do it on a political site, not a Catholic one. And if you have such faith that God “provides us with leaders of faith and constancy during times of trial”, why are you so worried that God will let the people to choose someone other than YOUR preference? It’s time to make God first priority, politics and all else second.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 01, 2004.
Eugene and Steve, please either stop insulting each other. This is a Catholic board.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.
Dear Bill, and my friends on forum:
I addressed a post to Frank D, a young voter interested in the truth; as to what a moral decision is in November. He asked a good question; why he should believe either candidate; according to this forum membership. When the antiwar poster here, Steve 555555555555555555 began condemning all who supported the Iraq war, it became imperative someone should debunk Steve's ''counter-to-Christ'' America bashing.I did my best; even getting down in the mud with a furious opponent. Not from malice, I repeat. Because young men and women, Frank D included, ought to have a balanced argument. Steve is one side; and we've indulged him for weeks now, trying to make his case. I chose the opposing view. It's that simple. For this I'm branded a racist, anti-Pope, non-Catholic, etc, blah- blah. On the authority of ONE benighted witness. One who simply can't accept the truth. --We are in a JUST war against an implacable enemy.
So, finally I addressed Frank D directly and I wish to close the book on my argument. Steve is free, AntiBush too, to continue railing without end; I wish them luck. To me, they're ridiculous. It's no use showing them up any longer. Their own words are up here to expose to all the deficiencies of their false convictions. Let everyone who reads this thread decide for him/her self. God bless us all; CIAO.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2004.
“insulting EACH OTHER” ?? Bill, you can see the insults are all flowing in one direction. He spouts forth the most repulsive racism: he says 40% of Frenchwomen are happy to be prostitutes. He says it’s good and Christian and inspired by St James to kill and exile those of other races and religions. You know this is racism. We all know it. I’m sure even he knows it in his heart. But he feigns to be “insulted” when I name it as such. He pours every kind of scorn he can think of on me and accuses me of supporting abortion and sodomy and all manner of evil. Believe me, I have been sorely tempted to reply in kind to his vitriolic invective. It’s not as if he hasn’t left himself wide open for it with his irrational non-sequiturs and his petulant outbursts of verbal grapeshot at anyone who dares disagree with him. But I have thought and prayed about it before hitting the keyboard, and tried (and I believe succeeded pretty well) to speak only the truth with charity, as befits a Catholic board. I have certainly not been “furious” or “got down in the mud” or “bashing” anyone or, LOL, “Counter to Christ”!. Let these allegations rest on him who made them. Being such an expert on Spain, perhaps he knows the Spanish proverb, “If you spit at Heaven, the spit falls back in your face.”In response to my honest but charitable criticism, rather than examining what he has written, he says “I stand confidently by every statement I've made” while self-righteously pontificating on my and others' “sins”. He has created a topsy-turvy world in his mind where the Church and its leaders actually think the war on Iraq is JUST, and where there is only ONE person, ( “THE antiwar poster here…ONE benighted witness. ONE who simply can't accept the truth.” ) variously named Steve/Scott/Anti-bush etc. , who thinks otherwise. Sorry, I’m not going to pretend to live in that imaginary world; as your quiz said I’m a Realist.
Frank, contrary to what you have been told, the moral teaching of the Universal Church is NOT identical to the political agenda of the US Republican Party. Beware of those giving simplistic answers to complex questions. Your dilemma over the election is a complex one, and unlike others I’m not going to presume to tell you how to vote. Even if we confine ourselves to right-to-life issues, which are correctly stated as the most basic ones, we find a mixed picture with the two main candidates:
Bush: PRO – MAY appoint a “pro-life” judge to the Supreme Court who MAY swing a decision IF the question of abortion comes up again in the near future, which MAY lead to restrictions on legal abortion and a possible reduction in number of abortions. Will retain some restrictions on abuse of embryos for research, but won’t prohibit it.
ANTI- Has fought aggressive “pre-emptive” war against a country which had not attacked us, causing thousands of deaths and injuries and diversion of billions from other, life-saving activities. Likely to do so again, possibly leading to death of the entire human race. Will do nothing to restrict capital punishment and may even widen its application.
Kerry: ANTI – Less likely to cause such a war, but may still do so. Will do nothing to restrict legality of abortion and will likely allow increased abuse of embryos.
PRO: - Will restore some social support measures which will probably reduce demand for abortion. Will restrict use of capital punishment, especially of children and the mentally retarded.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 01, 2004.
The Fellow keeps lying:
''''He [Moi?] says 40% of Frenchwomen are happy to be prostitutes.'' I never said that. I said France is a country which pretends to lead in culture and Catholicism, yet the fact is, prostitution employs quite a remarkable number of French daughters. Everybody realizes that. Lol! I stand by that statement, Even so; Steve lied saying what he said.''He [Me?] says it’s good and Christian and inspired by St James to kill and exile those of other races and religions. You know this is racism.'' --I think Steve means it's only those of our own race & creed we can kill or exile and yet remain Christian. Is that what you say, Steve?
In fact, I really said, and stand by now; a Catholic saint's holy intercession was invoked on the part of the Spanish nation. Saint James of Compostela is traditionally believed to have answered the peoples' petitions and inspired them during a JUST WAR --versus an anti-Christian enemy-- who had enccroached on their lands. It's a historical fact, and nothing sinful at all. As everyone knows, our Pope granted his Jubilee Year indulgence to Catholic pilgrims who visited the holy shrine of St. James Compostela in 2000. (I myself obtained this.) He would hardly allow one for this shrine, approached so very devoutly, if we were racists. We pray with Catholic fervor to a saint called ''Matamoros''-- whether Steve likes that or not. We aren't racists in any way.
''. . . scorn . . .he can think of on me and accuses me of supporting abortion and sodomy and all manner of evil.'' I hate to accuse him again of lying; - But there it is.
I never did anything like that. I said his views on ''racism'' were likely inculcated by the same ones who foster or condone these sins he mentions. (Abortion as feminist studies, condoms & contraceptive distribution, bans on Christian religious expression, etc.) Liberal university courses. The only thing I said about Steve is, he was very likely brainwashed by those teachers. It certainly shows.
Steve definitely HAS been “furious”, Why else would he fabricate his paranoid lies? And he said war was altogether counter to Christ's teachings. A mere matter of opinion to which he has every right.
I have a right to support a necessary and JUST war. That doesn't mean I LOVE war, as Steve claims. It's easily seen he's bearing false witness against a brother. Lies and horrible accusations that not only hurt me, but offend God as well.
By way of supercilious condescension and preaching to his brethren, Steve says, '' . . . the moral teaching of the Universal Church is NOT identical to the political agenda of the US Republican Party.''
As if any of us had so suggested. Only a demagogue would approach our sincere convictions in that shallow manner. If the Republican party is wrong, we'll certainly reject it. Our Catholic faith comes above everything. He maintains, I guess, that he's the only faithful Catholic here, since he rejects the war. Well; he's absolutely mistaken. All he is is a Catholic protestor against war. No better and no worse than non-Catholics who blame America for the world's problems and appease Muslim fanatics who kill the innocent.
I want to finalize this argument. I won't be answering any more of Steve's lying posts. If he posts truthful ones, I may rejoin what seems worthwhile. Good-bye, and God bless everyone.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2004.
Here's some more Pro's and Anti's (no pun intended) for both candidates:Bush: Promised limited government in 2000, we now have the biggest federal government since Reagan. Apparently, since it was bureaucratic inneptitude that allowed 9/11 to happen, we need ome more bureaucracy.
Kerry: Has never promised limited government, and will likely increase the bureaucracy.
Bush: Increased corporate welfare to companies that move outside the United States to avoid U.S. taxes and labor laws, which takes jobs away from Americans and leaves the average taxpayer to pick up the slack (these compnies get all the benefits of America but none of the responsibility). He reversed long-standing U.S. policy not to give government contracts to companies like this. What do you expect when said companies contribute a few million to his campaign?
Kerry: Attacked these companies, called them "traitors". Funny thing is, he owns stock in a few of them and his wife works for one.
Bush: Removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, although getting almost a thousand Americans and several thousand Iraqis killed in the proccess, misleading the American people about the causes for war, and managing to turn record international approval of the U.S. after 9/11 into record dissaproval. The largest single peaceful protest in human history was against Bush in 2003 in Greece.
Kerry: Attacks the war now, but voted for it in 2002 (although this was only to give Bush the AUTHORITY to declare war later on).
Bush: Lied repeatedly about his military record (denied going AWOL for a year, denied being suspended for refusing to take a physical, ect.) which isn't such a big deal except for the lying and the fact that he still has the nerve to stand up in a rental flight suit, pretend to be a real soldier, and say "mission accomplished".
Kerry: Got three purple hearts in Vietnam, as well as several other medals. When he got home he joined a veterans group against the war and went on to be an active anti-war figure, although some accused him of using the anti-war movement for his own political gain.
Bush: Proposed to cut veteran's benefits by over one third.
Kerry: Voted against the 87 billion for Iraq, which included more body armor for the troops.
Bush: Has given NAFTA and the WTO greater power and has increased globalization. As a result of this, more and more companies are moving out of the country, leaving a bunch of unemployed Americans and poverty and destruction in their wake. They go on to exploit the third world ten times worse. The southern border of the U.S. is now extremely polluted because of corproations who have all moved their factories just a few miles across into Mexico, where the pollution controls are much lower.
Kerry: Has not spoken out strongly against NAFTA or globalization, and ofers no alternative.
Bush: Signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, a bill that allows for secret arrests and indefinite detentions with a trial or access to an attorney. It also allows law enforcement increased power to tap phones and read people's email without a court order.
Kerry: Voted for the PATRIOT Act, has yet to come out strongly against it.
Bush: Has refused to consider the fact that his good friends the Sauds may, in fact be harboring bin Laden, and has failed to look into the money trail that leads from Saudi banks to Al Quaeda.
Kerry: Has failed to call Bush on that.
More to come, I'm too tired now.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 01, 2004.
Again, for a Catholic, the most important issues are the 5 Non- Negotiables, the rest can be considered if the candidate passes that first test. In the case of Bush vs Kerry, it is clear one cannot vote for Kerry and he fails that 1st test. Bush seems to pass the 1st test.Don't get lost in the weeds....
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.