What Bush Has Done For The Pro-life Cause In America

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1639895' date='Aug 27 2008, 06:49 PM']I did say Darfur was a refuse hole.[/quote]

Appalling. Enough said.

[atheling]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1640325' date='Aug 28 2008, 08:36 AM']Nobody "equated" anything.

Just because two things are not equal, this does not mean the lesser thing doesn't deserve discussion.

The same Pope you all quote on life issues is the same Pope who decried the Iraq invasion as an unjust assault against life. Nothing you can say change that.

Don't EVER refer to me as "part of the Bush Derangement Syndrome". How dare you. First of all that phrase was SPECIFICALLY invented by conservative Republicans to use against liberal Democrats. I am not a liberal Democrat. I am a conservative Republican and an orthodox Catholic. So don't you dare use insults against me like you're talking to some godless liberal. And I resent being called "deranged" in any case.

I have said it before and I'll say it as many more times as necessary. I have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to criticize my government. If you don't like it, blame the Constitution.

And no, I don't trust the moral character of the President. I hope for it but I don't trust it. I trust God. God is running this world, not the President.[/quote]

Render under Caesar which is Caesar's and render unto God which is God's. God's kingdom is not of this world. Presidents have to deal with this world.

I have no problem with your criticizing the government or its officials. However, if your criticism is unfair, I will step in, and it is unfair. Parenthetically, I also have a right to criticize you, by way of constitutional right, so deal with it.

First, you fail to differentiate between the Pope's opinion on the invasion of Iraq, and his teaching on abortion. Perhaps I should quote an authority, since you do not wish to accept my position:

From Cardinal Ratzinger in a memo to bishops:

[quote]Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, [b]it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia[/b].[/quote] (Emphasis mine).

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/...gerommunion.htm[/url]

As you see, you cannot equate abortion with the death penalty or with war, as then Cardinal Ratzinger delineated. I never said that you cannot discuss the issue. However, I find your ciriticism unfair and imbalanced.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has violated UN resolutions, and continued its nuclear ambitions. If a rogue country refuses to concede to the resolutions, what are the consequences? If our words cannot be reinforced by action with teeth, what is the point of even having laws or rules?

No, I do not agree with your stance that President Bush is a "bad" president. He is not perfect, to be sure, and has made mistakes, as many have previously. Even President Reagan was mistaken by pulling out of Lebanon, and by appointing Justice Kennedy, yet he is deemed by most conservatives to be a great president.

I think honest historians will be kinder to President Bush than many of his critics. And after seeing so much hatred and vicious attacks against him, I refuse to jump on that bandwagon. I find it degrading and unChristian to kick a person when he is already down.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='atheling' post='1640530' date='Aug 28 2008, 01:11 PM']Render under Caesar which is Caesar's and render unto God which is God's. God's kingdom is not of this world. Presidents have to deal with this world.

I have no problem with your criticizing the government or its officials. However, if your criticism is unfair, I will step in, and it is unfair. Parenthetically, I also have a right to criticize you, by way of constitutional right, so deal with it.

First, you fail to differentiate between the Pope's opinion on the invasion of Iraq, and his teaching on abortion. Perhaps I should quote an authority, since you do not wish to accept my position:

From Cardinal Ratzinger in a memo to bishops:

(Emphasis mine).

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/...gerommunion.htm[/url]

As you see, you cannot equate abortion with the death penalty or with war, as then Cardinal Ratzinger delineated. I never said that you cannot discuss the issue. However, I find your ciriticism unfair and imbalanced.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has violated UN resolutions, and continued its nuclear ambitions. If a rogue country refuses to concede to the resolutions, what are the consequences? If our words cannot be reinforced by action with teeth, what is the point of even having laws or rules?

No, I do not agree with your stance that President Bush is a "bad" president. He is not perfect, to be sure, and has made mistakes, as many have previously. Even President Reagan was mistaken by pulling out of Lebanon, and by appointing Justice Kennedy, yet he is deemed by most conservatives to be a great president.

I think honest historians will be kinder to President Bush than many of his critics. And after seeing so much hatred and vicious attacks against him, I refuse to jump on that bandwagon. I find it degrading and unChristian to kick a person when he is already down.[/quote]

You are deliberately evading the points that I made regarding the Iraq "war" (It's only a war now because Bush got us into a war. I was not a war before. It was an invasion and cannot be rightfully called a war since we were NOT attacked) and about what it means to be pro-life. I have to believe you are deliberately evading becuase I happen to know I am a sharp, intelligent individual, and I know how to articulate my opinions, so I know that I have been clear but yet you are acting like you don't get it, or you are going off in another direction when you reply, or else you are completely ignoring certain of my points altogether. So since I don't think you're stupid, I have to assume you are willfully evading. In this case, it's impossible to continue this conversation with you.

I have made my points. A President cannot invade a nation that did not attack us, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and be heralded as a great pro-lifer. Period. Our Church teaches this and our Popes are clear on this.

[atheling]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1640539' date='Aug 28 2008, 12:22 PM']You are deliberately evading the points that I made regarding the Iraq "war" (It's only a war now because Bush got us into a war. I was not a war before. It was an invasion and cannot be rightfully called a war since we were NOT attacked) and about what it means to be pro-life. I have to believe you are deliberately evading becuase I happen to know I am a sharp, intelligent individual, and I know how to articulate my opinions, so I know that I have been clear but yet you are acting like you don't get it, or you are going off in another direction when you reply, or else you are completely ignoring certain of my points altogether. So since I don't think you're stupid, I have to assume you are willfully evading. In this case, it's impossible to continue this conversation with you.

I have made my points. A President cannot invade a nation that did not attack us, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and be heralded as a great pro-lifer. Period. Our Church teaches this and our Popes are clear on this.[/quote]

I brought up the issue of Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions. You evaded that.

Physician, heal thyself.

[atheling]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1640539' date='Aug 28 2008, 12:22 PM']You are deliberately evading the points that I made regarding the Iraq "war" (It's only a war now because Bush got us into a war. I was not a war before. It was an invasion and cannot be rightfully called a war since we were NOT attacked) and about what it means to be pro-life. I have to believe you are deliberately evading becuase I happen to know I am a sharp, intelligent individual, and I know how to articulate my opinions, so I know that I have been clear but yet you are acting like you don't get it, or you are going off in another direction when you reply, or else you are completely ignoring certain of my points altogether. So since I don't think you're stupid, I have to assume you are willfully evading. In this case, it's impossible to continue this conversation with you.

I have made my points. A President cannot invade a nation that did not attack us, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and be heralded as a great pro-lifer. Period. Our Church teaches this and our Popes are clear on this.[/quote]

[i]A President cannot invade a nation that did not attack us, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and be heralded as a great pro-lifer[/i]

Again, you are equating war with abortion.

Secondly, I guess President Roosevelt was wrong to invade France and fight Nazi Germany as neither of those countries invaded the US.

I am sorry, but your argument is full of holes, and lacks discernment.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='atheling' post='1640572' date='Aug 28 2008, 01:45 PM'][i]A President cannot invade a nation that did not attack us, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and be heralded as a great pro-lifer[/i]

Again, you are equating war with abortion.[/quote]


Get real.

A discussion of life issues is NOT equating one life issue with another.

AGAIN, just because two issues are not equal does not mean the lesser issue is not deserving of discussion.

AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN: No one equated anything with anything. The Church spoke out against the Iraq invasion. The Church has repeatedly taught that to be authentically pro-life one must RESIST the culture of death.

[Madame Vengier]

*double post*

Edited August 28, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Madame Vengier]

*rats*

Edited August 28, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[atheling]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1640662' date='Aug 28 2008, 01:23 PM']Get real.

A discussion of life issues is NOT equating one life issue with another.

AGAIN, just because two issues are not equal does not mean the lesser issue is not deserving of discussion.

AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN: No one equated anything with anything. The Church spoke out against the Iraq invasion. The Church has repeatedly taught that to be authentically pro-life one must RESIST the culture of death.[/quote]

You have still not responded to my points.

Frankly, your hostile and rude tone make this conversation difficult. I don't know what I have done to warrant your rudeness here and on another thread, but really, it is unChristian and uncalled for.

You do no credit to our faith when your attitude does not reflect its true teachings. Perhaps you should consider re-reading what I wrote, and address my points instead of evading them and falsely accusing me of the same.

[Nihil Obstat]

Atheling, I have to admit that,
although Madame Vengier scares the living daylights out of me, what she's saying is absolutely correct. She's not saying that war and abortion are one and the same, but she is recognizing an important truth; both are life issues. They're not the same, but they definitely aren't seperate. You can't be truly pro-life if you're a war criminal.
I'm not going to make any judgements or give any opinions on this Iraq issue, so don't take it the wrong way by me using the words 'war criminal'. All I'm saying is that right now I think Madame Vengier is correct.
EDIT: I'm not even going to get into 'uncharitableness' though.


Pax.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Nihil Obstat

[atheling]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1640671' date='Aug 28 2008, 01:28 PM']Atheling, I have to admit that,
although Madame Vengier scares the living daylights out of me, what she's saying is absolutely correct. She's not saying that war and abortion are one and the same, but she is recognizing an important truth; both are life issues. They're not the same, but they definitely aren't seperate. You can't be truly pro-life if you're a war criminal.
I'm not going to make any judgements or give any opinions on this Iraq issue, so don't take it the wrong way by me using the words 'war criminal'. All I'm saying is that right now I think Madame Vengier is correct.

Pax. [/quote]

I agree that one cannot be pro life and a war criminal, but I do not believe that President Bush is a war criminal. That is my contention. He invaded Iraq with UN approval, because Iraq ignored the resolutions.

Again, I ask: If we do not back up our laws and rules with the consequence of action, then how do we enforce said rules or laws?

This comes down to opinion on whether the invasion is just. I believe that it is. You and Mme. Vergier do not. According to Cardinal Ratzinger's memo, one CAN disagree with the Pope or any Catholic clergy on that issue, but cannot on abortion.

Therefore, I CAN disagree with the comment that President Bush is not pro life because of his stance on Iraq.

Secondly, Mme. Vergier did not answer my question on invading France during WWII. They did not invade the US. Does that mean our invasion there was unlawful? According to her, it was! I am still waiting for a reply.

Edited August 28, 2008 by atheling

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='atheling' post='1640675' date='Aug 28 2008, 02:35 PM']I agree that one cannot be pro life and a war criminal, but I do not believe that President Bush is a war criminal. That is my contention. He invaded Iraq with UN approval, because Iraq ignored the resolutions.

Again, I ask: If we do not back up our laws and rules with the consequence of action, then how do we enforce said rules or laws?

This comes down to opinion on whether the invasion is just. I believe that it is. You and Mme. Vergier do not. According to Cardinal Ratzinger's memo, one CAN disagree with the Pope or any Catholic clergy on that issue, but cannot on abortion.

Therefore, I CAN disagree with the comment that President Bush is not pro life because of his stance on Iraq.

Secondly, Mme. Vergier did not answer my question on invading France during WWII. They did not invade the US. Does that mean our invasion there was unlawful? According to her, it was! I am still waiting for a reply.[/quote]

As a small student of history, back then, there were not international laws saying when you could and could not invade a country.

The laws were created after WWII because of the atomic bomb.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sure, you CAN disagree with the Church. Seems pretty dangerous to me though. Do you want to get into the whole issue of "I know better than the Church does"? I sure don't. I'm inclined to trust them when it comes to things that I don't necessarily understand.
After all, do you have all the facts? I doubt it. The Church on the other hand... not going to say they have all the facts, but they do have a lot going for them, don't you agree?

[quote]it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]
That means that we, as Catholics, can in general hold different views. It doesn't say a thing about disagreeing with the Pope. That's a different issue. Just because in general diverse opinions are accepted doesn't mean that in specific. cases diverse opinions are correct. Sometimes it's permissible to execute a criminal (in theory, again, I'll voice no opinions) but that doesn't mean you execute someone who is spending the night in prison for public intoxication.
Of course this is an extreme example, and I'm not putting words in your mouth.

[atheling]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1640691' date='Aug 28 2008, 01:53 PM']Sure, you CAN disagree with the Church. Seems pretty dangerous to me though. Do you want to get into the whole issue of "I know better than the Church does"? I sure don't. I'm inclined to trust them when it comes to things that I don't necessarily understand.
After all, do you have all the facts? I doubt it. The Church on the other hand... not going to say they have all the facts, but they do have a lot going for them, don't you agree?


That means that we, as Catholics, can in general hold different views. It doesn't say a thing about disagreeing with the Pope. That's a different issue. Just because in general diverse opinions are accepted doesn't mean that in specific. cases diverse opinions are correct. Sometimes it's permissible to execute a criminal (in theory, again, I'll voice no opinions) but that doesn't mean you execute someone who is spending the night in prison for public intoxication.
Of course this is an extreme example, and I'm not putting words in your mouth.[/quote]

[quote]Sure, you CAN disagree with the Church. Seems pretty dangerous to me though. Do you want to get into the whole issue of "I know better than the Church does"?[/quote]

The Church [i]has[/i] been wrong on a few things, like condemning Galileo for his scientific theories. The Church also burned Joan of Arc at the stake. Sounds like an error to me.

That said, I still disagree with the Church on the issue of Iraq. I disagree with the Church's views on illegals in this country as well, when they provide them with sanctuary. I disagree with the Church when they tell immigrants that they do not need to learn English when they emigrate here, and to keep speaking Spanish at home. I think that undermines America's lawful sovereignty.

Is that dangerous?

[quote]After all, do you have all the facts? I doubt it. The Church on the other hand... not going to say they have all the facts, but they do have a lot going for them, don't you agree?[/quote]

The facts on Iraq are quite simple. The UN had passed resolutions against Iraq for its nuclear ambitions and WMDs. Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN and continued with its wrongful policies. America, with allies, and under UN approval, and under Congressional approval, invaded Iraq.

If one "draws the line in the sand" with a criminal, and he crosses that line, does the criminal warrant punishment? Or does one just give him a "time out"?

It sounds clear cut to me. I'm sorry, but the Church's position on this is wrong and ignorant, and considering that many of its officials (excluding the Pope) are tainted with liberalism, I find their conclusions suspect.

[quote]That means that we, as Catholics, can in general hold different views. It doesn't say a thing about disagreeing with the Pope[/quote]

Didn't you read the excerpt? Or perhaps I didn't quote it entirely. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger said:

[quote][b]For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. [/b][/quote]

Sounds like one CAN disagree with the Pope on the issues of war and capital punishment and still be in communion with the Church to me.

[StColette]

[quote name='atheling' post='1640719' date='Aug 28 2008, 04:29 PM']The Church [i]has[/i] been wrong on a few things, like condemning Galileo for his scientific theories. The Church also burned Joan of Arc at the stake. Sounds like an error to me.[/quote]

These two situations were not decisions of the Church, but individuals of the Church acting on their own accord. The Church did not condemn Galileo's theories but rather individuals of the Church condemned him for going around saying "the Church is wrong the Church is wrong". And as for Joan of Arc, she was burned at the stake by Cardinals who thought they were acting on behalf of the entire Church when in fact they were not.


[quote]That said, I still disagree with the Church on the issue of Iraq. I disagree with the Church's views on illegals in this country as well, when they provide them with sanctuary. I disagree with the Church when they tell immigrants that they do not need to learn English when they emigrate here, and to keep speaking Spanish at home. I think that undermines America's lawful sovereignty.[/quote]

Again the Church does not have an "official view" on the issue of Iraq. The late Holy Father made clear his personal opinion on the matter, that does not equate to the "Church's view"