Were Those Who Opposed War Wrong?
The question has been raised and it deserves an answer. Yet it must be asked does the answer to the question depend on the results of the war? If in the future there is a rise of terrorist activity in the United States and Britian would that make the war suddenly suspect in the minds of supporters? If there is never any "real" evidence of weapons of mass destruction found would that make the war wrong? Does anyone even remember why this war was being fought in the first place and why those opposed felt that all the means to avoid it had not been exhuasted?
There is no question that the United States possesses a superior military second to none on this planet. We have air and satelite capabilities that make us the "supermen" of the planet. We can easily become the bully on the block--but the bully in the end is always destroyed by some "David" who comes at it with a slingshot. We can also become a great force for the good of the world (as we have often been at our better moments).
Those who opposed the war or in most case correctly opposed the war at this time can speak for themselves. I for one still think that the end doesn't justify the means--a good end doesn't justify using any means to arrive at it. But my convictions come from my belief in Jesus Christ and how I encounter Him in the Gospels--His injunction that Catholics will hear again this Holy Week that if a man doesn't have a sword, he should now buy one is quickly followed by one of his disciples using a sword when the same Jesus comes under attack. The Lord responds angrily for His disciple to put away the sword, "for those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
There is nothing wrong with us having the big sword, but if we start living by it--I fear what the future may hold for us.
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Friday, April 11, 2003
EWTN Launches Site for Children This Sunday!
Eternal Word Television Network, Global Catholic Network
Eternal Word Television Network, Global Catholic Network
Catholic...and Against the War in Iraq
(No Liberals, Lefties,or Loons Here!)
I'm posting a tidbit, but visit the site for the whole piece.
From The Editor of The Remnant:
There have been some suggestions of late that Catholics who are against the U.S. attack on Iraq must now be saddled with some unsavory alliances to the peacenik movement. This is a stale canard, of course. Christ Himself is the Prince of Peace, after all, does that make Susan Sarandon a Christian?
We vigorously reject this non-existent alliance, and would ask our Catholic critics the following questions: Is Pat Buchanan a hippie? Is Bishop Richard Williamson a liberal? Is Joe Sobran a socialist? John Zmirak a communist? Dr. Thomas Droleskey a pinko? Lew Rockwell a leftist? Dr. Tom Woods, Christopher Ferrara and Michael J. Matt—a wacky cadre of Joan Baez fans? Please! Liberals and loons from Howard Stern, to Henry Kissinger, to Kid Rock, to pro-abort Senator John McCain to Ariel Sharon are in favor of this war, while neo-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have been its champions and apologists since before September 11, 2001. Conversely, the most respected conservative Catholic commentators have been against it from the outset (e.g., Pat Buchanan, an internationally known traditional Catholic who’s been on the inside of U.S. politics for decades, who regularly attends the tridentine Mass, and who hosts an afternoon television program on MSNBC).
It’s certainly true that the majority of Americans are enthusiastic and feeling very patriotic about this “war” in Iraq; but it’s also true that the majority of Americans are enthusiastic about premarital sexual intercourse. Millions of Americans also feel very patriotic about defending a “woman’s right to choose”. What the majority is excited about in the moment is of little consequence to this discussion of whether our war against Iraq is good for our country.
(No Liberals, Lefties,or Loons Here!)
I'm posting a tidbit, but visit the site for the whole piece.
From The Editor of The Remnant:
There have been some suggestions of late that Catholics who are against the U.S. attack on Iraq must now be saddled with some unsavory alliances to the peacenik movement. This is a stale canard, of course. Christ Himself is the Prince of Peace, after all, does that make Susan Sarandon a Christian?
We vigorously reject this non-existent alliance, and would ask our Catholic critics the following questions: Is Pat Buchanan a hippie? Is Bishop Richard Williamson a liberal? Is Joe Sobran a socialist? John Zmirak a communist? Dr. Thomas Droleskey a pinko? Lew Rockwell a leftist? Dr. Tom Woods, Christopher Ferrara and Michael J. Matt—a wacky cadre of Joan Baez fans? Please! Liberals and loons from Howard Stern, to Henry Kissinger, to Kid Rock, to pro-abort Senator John McCain to Ariel Sharon are in favor of this war, while neo-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have been its champions and apologists since before September 11, 2001. Conversely, the most respected conservative Catholic commentators have been against it from the outset (e.g., Pat Buchanan, an internationally known traditional Catholic who’s been on the inside of U.S. politics for decades, who regularly attends the tridentine Mass, and who hosts an afternoon television program on MSNBC).
It’s certainly true that the majority of Americans are enthusiastic and feeling very patriotic about this “war” in Iraq; but it’s also true that the majority of Americans are enthusiastic about premarital sexual intercourse. Millions of Americans also feel very patriotic about defending a “woman’s right to choose”. What the majority is excited about in the moment is of little consequence to this discussion of whether our war against Iraq is good for our country.
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Pope During Weekly Audience
I think he is fed up with some of the posts left in the comments here who accuse him of not caring about people.
I have restrained myself from showing pictures of children with amputated limbs and other horific civilian injuries etc on this site. I try to maintain a balance of presenting some objective view that I feel I have gotten from some of the international news networks. But there are a lot out there who think that those news agencies (most of whom are not involved in this war on either side) are the presenters of propaganda.
Then there are those who think that the decision to go to war has been vindicated because people are cheering the coalition forces, who have totally wiped out the Iraqi military. I have only to remind you that a few days ago when Saddam was in power they were cheering wildly for him. Under the threat of violence you say? Oh and I guess they don't feel that threat from us?
War is hell both for our troops and for the people who have to live through it. We have had a taste of that on 9/11/01 and I doubt any one of us would want to be in a place where buildings were crumbling around us. The superiority of our forces begs the question--couldn't we have taken Saddam Hussein out without going to war? Locally three very young men have giving their lives for this cause. They are gone. Would you sacrifice your son for this war? Its glib to say you support the war and then sit back while someone else's child fights for you.
We have demonstrated that we are far superior with our technology to anyone out there. Is war even necessary anymore?
I do stand with the Pope and his call for peace. I have prayed for peace and protection very actively since 9/11 awoke me from my complacency. I hope those who get angry at the notion of "praying for peace" will see that we are all ultimately wanting the same result but the question is how best to acheive it.
Has it been prayers or armaments that have won the day so far? Only God knows the answer to that.
I think he is fed up with some of the posts left in the comments here who accuse him of not caring about people.
I have restrained myself from showing pictures of children with amputated limbs and other horific civilian injuries etc on this site. I try to maintain a balance of presenting some objective view that I feel I have gotten from some of the international news networks. But there are a lot out there who think that those news agencies (most of whom are not involved in this war on either side) are the presenters of propaganda.
Then there are those who think that the decision to go to war has been vindicated because people are cheering the coalition forces, who have totally wiped out the Iraqi military. I have only to remind you that a few days ago when Saddam was in power they were cheering wildly for him. Under the threat of violence you say? Oh and I guess they don't feel that threat from us?
War is hell both for our troops and for the people who have to live through it. We have had a taste of that on 9/11/01 and I doubt any one of us would want to be in a place where buildings were crumbling around us. The superiority of our forces begs the question--couldn't we have taken Saddam Hussein out without going to war? Locally three very young men have giving their lives for this cause. They are gone. Would you sacrifice your son for this war? Its glib to say you support the war and then sit back while someone else's child fights for you.
We have demonstrated that we are far superior with our technology to anyone out there. Is war even necessary anymore?
I do stand with the Pope and his call for peace. I have prayed for peace and protection very actively since 9/11 awoke me from my complacency. I hope those who get angry at the notion of "praying for peace" will see that we are all ultimately wanting the same result but the question is how best to acheive it.
Has it been prayers or armaments that have won the day so far? Only God knows the answer to that.
Have the Moonies Infiltrated Afghanistan?
From Yahoo News:
Afghan boys sell seasonal flowers to motorists passing on the highway to Kabul, southwest of Bagram, Afghanistan, on Wednesay, April 9, 2003. The flower, locally known as laula, grows wild in the fields surrounding the villages and highway, some of which are still covered with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, posing a risk to the population.
From Yahoo News:
Afghan boys sell seasonal flowers to motorists passing on the highway to Kabul, southwest of Bagram, Afghanistan, on Wednesay, April 9, 2003. The flower, locally known as laula, grows wild in the fields surrounding the villages and highway, some of which are still covered with anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, posing a risk to the population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)