Something That Struck Me Today When I Was

[Mickey's_Girl]

LOL! I give up. Not because your force of arguments have won me over, but because we're talking a different language.

I'm saying that people everywhere are just as trustworthy or untrustworthy as anyone else. Crusader1234 is certain that American media is more biased than anyone else's (huh?) and that the CBC is the only reliable source...although I imagine that was a joke. (CBC RULES!)

(oh, and, by the way, I hardly ever watch TV news. I get most of my info from newspapers and NPR.)

By the way, Crusader1234, are you trying to say that the Pope has his own spies? For real? I thought only anti-Catholic conspirators thought that. Like, all 1 billion Catholics are one big spy network for the Pope?

Iacobus is saying the UN is MORE trustworthy than the US, because they have no agenda, and that the corruption of Oil-For-Food is irrelevant to weapons inspections because they were different sections. True; I was not committing the fallacy of guilt-by-association. Rather, I made the connection to show that the UN is not [b]all [/b]sweetness and light like so many people seem to think, and that, in fact, they took advantage of the Iraqi people at least as badly as we are doing. They GAVE SADDAM MONEY and kept some for themselves, while the Iraqi people still needed that food.

Putting Iraq aside for the moment...even a cursory reading of geopolitics would show that, far from being agenda-less, various members of the UN have very strong agendas that they use it for. The UN is a huge organization, and there are many different wings, but countries try to use it for their advantage all the time. For instance: many of the people involved in the human right section (committee?) of the UN are from countries that notoriously abuse human rights (sorry too tired to look it up right now, but I've heard that from several different sources). During the Cold War both the US and the Soviet Union manipulated the UN all the time.

The UN does some good things in the world, but it's *all about* agendas. To think otherwise is naive.

Human nature is the same everywhere, whether you're American, Canadian, or from any other country. We all have our different opinions, but we only rarely behave more righteously than everybody else. (Too bad it doesn't happen more often.)

And on JP2 "thinking for" you: I think we'd all do well to be guided by him, and to listen to what he has to say. He's incredibly wise, experienced, and holy. But I also think he would not want you to abandon thinking for yourself, either (I don't mean running off contrary to the Magisterium...I mean [b]thinking[/b]). JP2 is a scholar, and he lived (and his native country lived) long enough without full freedom of thought to know how important it is. All of us need to learn to think.

Have fun, y'all. I'll catch ya another time. :wub:

MG

[qfnol31]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:36 AM']Would it be morally wrong for them to not march for pro-choice causes?  A lot of people have some ill-conceived ideas of what is right and are very adamant about these ideas, and its not right for them to be acting on them.[/quote]
Ahh, but this falls under Natural Law. In the case of the President, liberating people under a bad regime could actually be something that you can justify. In the case of pro-choice, that's a Natural Law issue. A person would still be wrong in not standing up for it, as I'm pretty sure it's one of those two Doctors (sorry, I've lost my notes ) Just as it would be wrong for them to stand up for it. It's just less wrong in the President's case.

Am I making any sense?

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:36 AM']
Secondly, the Pope didnt say 'dont stop' so much as he said 'CLEAN UP THIS MESS!' aside from he said it in a very diplomatic way (gotta love the Pope).
[/quote]

He pretty much said not to get involved in the first place.

[crusader1234]

First, as for the President being 'less wrong'... he is simply less wrong on the grounds that the issue is not as grave. Whats important to remember, especially with all this 'look how we saved them!' propaganda running around, that they didnt go in there to liberate. They went in there for bad reasons, then realized they were wrong and tried to turn it into some human rights thing... makes me feel sick.

As for the comments about 'CLEAN THIS MESS UP!' I was referring to the recent meeting of Bush and JP2, not the original messages.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:48 AM']First, as for the President being 'less wrong'... he is simply less wrong on the grounds that the issue is not as grave.  Whats important to remember, especially with all this 'look how we saved them!' propaganda running around, that they didnt go in there to liberate.  They went in there for bad reasons, then realized they were wrong and tried to turn it into some human rights thing... makes me feel sick.[/quote]
I agree. Though now I'm somewhat torn on what to make of it now. It has become something that could be a worthy reason for being there.......


[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jun 10 2004, 03:48 AM']
As for the comments about 'CLEAN THIS MESS UP!' I was referring to the recent meeting of Bush and JP2, not the original messages.[/quote]

LoL, just making sure I wasn't confusing. I have that talent.

[Iacobus]

[quote]I do want to start off by saying that when he met with the Pope last Friday, Bush was told that the war in Iraq is not a just war and some other things (I'm not sure what all, I only caught pieces of it). However, for the President to keep on doing what he is doing isn't necessarily wrong either. First of all, he is not Catholic. Though I wish everyone was, they're not.  In this way, he is not obligated to obey the Pope in the way that Catholics are. My Philosophy professor told us, I believe quoting Augustine or Aquinas (I can't remember which), anyways, if the President feels morally called to go into Iraq, then it would be a worse sin for him not to. He has pretty strong religious convictions it seems, and he also seems to stick to them. This is something in his favor.[/quote]

Yes the Pres is not Catholic. But I am. So it affects me, how I can faithfully vote, what he does. To quote Hananiah web site,

[quote]The issue of the Iraq war is similar. To answer Fr. Greeley's question, yes it would be a sin to support an unjust war and to vote for a candidate responsible for such a war. However, whether the war against Iraq is unjust is a prudential judgment which Catholics are free to make for themselves, until such time as the Pope makes it for them. So far, all John Paul II has done is advise against the war. He could, if he so desired, issue a formal decree condemning it as unjust and forbidding all Catholics from participation. [/quote]

So the degree of juntness in this war affects my vote just as a pro life stance does.

On to your second block,

[quote]Now on to the Pope. It is hard to be split between country and Pope. By the way, the approval rate of the war in Iraq was really high, probably the highest in many, many years. The President may have reasons behind what he has done that we don't know. Who knows what all he gets in his reports. I'm willing to bet that there is probably some information that he has that the Pope doesn't have a clue about. Now this does not necessarily make the war over there just, but it does leave us open to discuss a little big. This is where it gets difficult.[/quote]

"Pope John Paul II's opinion should count more than Donald Rumsfeld's or Bill O'Reilly's. At the very least, the Catholic should not simply abdicate moral judgment in this matter to leaders of a secular nation-state." I will take my pope view on what is moral and just over the news of a media pundit, pollster, or leaders of a secular state. That is not a issue. As Catholics, we bow to the teachings of Rome on morals, faith, ethics and not to our pres.

[quote]Also, Bush is first the servant of the people, so would it be more wrong for him to not go to war, or to not follow the people he serves? He may have felt there was a real danger there, which makes it his duty to protect us (according to the Constitution). I do want to say right now that the approval rate is much lower (below half if memory serves). However, the President went in there and it would be unjust for them not to set up a just government, or finish what we've started over there. Interestingly the Pope didn't say "make sure you have good reason," but rather "you don't have good reason." This raises a few interesting questions. Why didn't he leave room for information is top on my list.[/quote]

His approval rating last I knew was somewhere about 47%. Bush is a servant of the people. In abstract. Did he follow the people to Iraq or did he lead? I rember back to Aug '02 when Iraq was 1st publicly an issue no one in the public was really talking about it. It came as a suprise out of the White House. And if he felt there was a "clear and present danger" than why did his reasons float from WMD's to Regie Change to freeing the Iraqis to WMDs? Why didn't any other nation, save UK and Spain agree with us? How come no other Intel services picked up on these WMD's?

And yes now that we are engaged in Iraq we own it. Your broke it, you fix it.

[quote]One of the things that people must also remember, as has been stated before is the weapons of mass destruction. That could be a good reason for a just war, if there's a good chance of them being used. We don't know if this is the case or not. This would justify a preemptive strike.[/quote]

If there was a chance of Iraq using WMDs offesivly Isreali and Saudi and possibly Irani forces would have moved in before we did. They are the ones who would have to fear Iraq. Not the UK, US and Spain who are all well out of Iraqi weapons range.

[quote]Before I leave this, I do wish to call to mind the different opinions of the Pope and USCCB. The USCCB, though may not be in total favor, did say something along the lines of it's okay to support the war. This came out around the time that war was actually declared. I thinkthat this is an interesting phenomenon, and just wanted to say that because of it, an American can support the war and not be against the Magesterium. Though I hold the Pope to have the final say in things, I do also acknowledge the authority of Bishops. This is a hard situation because you must choose who's right...Prayer is what I suggest.[/quote]

All I have to say is "When the Pope and the bishops worldwide unite virtually unanimously in clear and repeated opposition to a war, the Catholic conscience should treat this matter with utmost seriousness."

[crusader1234]

Amen brotha

[qfnol31]

As you read this, remember I'm opposed to the war.

[quote]"Pope John Paul II's opinion should count more than Donald Rumsfeld's or Bill O'Reilly's. At the very least, the Catholic should not simply abdicate moral judgment in this matter to leaders of a secular nation-state." I will take my pope view on what is moral and just over the news of a media pundit, pollster, or leaders of a secular state. That is not a issue. As Catholics, we bow to the teachings of Rome on morals, faith, ethics and not to our pres.[/quote]

Aye, it should, however, the Pope may not know something that would have made it a just war, and had he known it he may have supported the war. Remember, I'm opposed to it.

[quote]His approval rating last I knew was somewhere about 47%. Bush is a servant of the people. In abstract. Did he follow the people to Iraq or did he lead? I rember back to Aug '02 when Iraq was 1st publicly an issue no one in the public was really talking about it. It came as a suprise out of the White House. And if he felt there was a "clear and present danger" than why did his reasons float from WMD's to Regie Change to freeing the Iraqis to WMDs? Why didn't any other nation, save UK and Spain agree with us? How come no other Intel services picked up on these WMD's?[/quote]

Eh, the only reason I could think of for this is because they didn't have the adreneline of the war in Afghanistan or being attacked. Not saying this is right, but this is probably what caused so many people in the US to support the war so quickly, that and the suprise.

[quote]If there was a chance of Iraq using WMDs offesivly Isreali and Saudi and possibly Irani forces would have moved in before we did. They are the ones who would have to fear Iraq. Not the UK, US and Spain who are all well out of Iraqi weapons range.[/quote]

That's true, but is protecting an ally from someone attacking just? (I don't think there was good reason, but if somehow Bush knew something about this, would it make it just?)

[quote]All I have to say is "When the Pope and the bishops worldwide unite virtually unanimously in clear and repeated opposition to a war, the Catholic conscience should treat this matter with utmost seriousness." [/quote]

Unfortunately, the USCCB originally said that every Catholic could make up their mind whether or not to support the war.

[crusader1234]

We always have freedom, that doesnt change whats right.

[qfnol31]

LoL, so true. Someone who agrees!!!!! LoL...

Here's a question though, if the entire USCCB says something, is it wrong to do it?

[crusader1234]

Well, it depends on what they say.

I am from Canada, so this doesnt exactly have the same importance to me, however, I think it is most wise to go on the word of the Pope, rather than just the USCCB.

If the Pope says quack, the USCCB says bark, and General Kolvenbach says meow, then I think it's in everyones best interest to just quack.

Get what I mean?

Edited June 10, 2004 by crusader1234

[qfnol31]

LoL, I agree...Unfortunately, the bark would be most heard here many times. Most people forget the quack should be over the bark.

[Iacobus]

[quote]Aye, it should, however, the Pope may not know something that would have made it a just war, and had he known it he may have supported the war. Remember, I'm opposed to it.[/quote]

When you send a Sec. of State to the UN to make the case for war before the UN Security Conciul you are going to play the best cards. The Bush admin really tried to make a case for war and told you all the reasons they had *save oil, maybe* and the reason for those reasons. So I doubt the pres was privy to something the pope didn't know. None of the reasons panned out.

We can't go fight a war assuming it is just and at the end go "Opps we were wrong." We need to KNOW not feel or think or belive that the war is just before hand.

[quote]Eh, the only reason I could think of for this is because they didn't have the adreneline of the war in Afghanistan or being attacked. Not saying this is right, but this is probably what caused so many people in the US to support the war so quickly, that and the suprise.[/quote]

I beg to differ about them having the adreneline. The IDF was in a combat posture becuase of West Bank uprisings. North Korea was getting ICBMs *from Pakastan our "ally"*. NATO invoked the Mutual defense clause after 9/11. All of the Far East was on the edge with N. Koreas ICBMs. All the MidEast over the Palastine uprisings. Most of North American and most of Europe due to NATO on a war stance. They had the adreneline and fear of being attacked. Morever, terrorists did attack. Bali, embassies, etc. So that doesn't really work to explain away why nobody else saw this threat.

[quote]That's true, but is protecting an ally from someone attacking just? (I don't think there was good reason, but if somehow Bush knew something about this, would it make it just?)[/quote]

If the IDF needed help they would have served in Iraq. If the Saudis needed help they would have served as well. If Iran needed help they were alone. If Turkey needed help we wouldn't have had the issues we did with them to get access rights.

And the Pope overrules the USCCB

[littleflower+JMJ]

when it comes to voting it comes down to the stances of abortion and euthansia which are primary and non-negotiable to catholics.

oh and good points qfnol.

:sleep:

[qfnol31]

[quote]We can't go fight a war assuming it is just and at the end go "Opps we were wrong." We need to KNOW not feel or think or belive that the war is just before hand.[/quote]

I agree with that whole-heartily. This is one reason I don't think the war should have taken place. This is the reason I disagree most with it. However, like I've said before, the USCCB has said that citizens could make up their own mind...I think that given more time, a just cause for war probably could have been given. The fact that I disagree with having gone into war can be a cause of struggle between me and my friends.

[quote]I beg to differ about them having the adreneline. The IDF was in a combat posture becuase of West Bank uprisings. North Korea was getting ICBMs *from Pakastan our "ally"*. NATO invoked the Mutual defense clause after 9/11. All of the Far East was on the edge with N. Koreas ICBMs. All the MidEast over the Palastine uprisings. Most of North American and most of Europe due to NATO on a war stance. They had the adreneline and fear of being attacked. Morever, terrorists did attack. Bali, embassies, etc. So that doesn't really work to explain away why nobody else saw this threat.[/quote]

What I meant when I said that is that we probably wanted to go to war because we had been attacked, and I have no idea why else. To be honest, I can't figure out why so many Americans wanted to go to war. If I remember correctly, the original reasoning given was the threat for illegal missles, so we "went on behalf of the UN," but at the same time we disobeyed them. Now I want to stick in my own two cents here, I don't care for the UN much at times. Love the people, but some of their actions are questionable.

[quote]And the Pope overrules the USCCB [/quote]

Yes!!!!!!!!! Too many Catholics forget this at times. Oh well.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='littleflower' date='JMJ+Jun 10 2004, 04:26 AM'] when it comes to cathoilics voting it comes down to the primary stances of abortion and euthansia.

oh and good points qfnol.

:sleep: [/quote]
Yes Flowery I agree. But when someone rejects the Church (as a Catholic of cousre) that is reason not to vote for them.