anti-war/Bush PA Episcopal Diocese 222nd Convention, need help in rebuttal

Thanks, KP, for your warm introduction.

I'd like to preface this post with a preemptive apology for any mistakes that I may be about to make. I am, indeed, a n00b. So, mea culpa, in advance.

I spoke with my brother about a resolution that is to be put forth at the 222nd Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania on November 5, 2005. You may read the text of the resolution below (if I manage to cut/paste properly) or you may view it on the diocesan web page (www.diopa.org) under the heading "Proposed Resolutions".
This is resolution 10.

The gist of the resolution is that the author wants the Episcopal Church to ask George W. Bush to publicly beg God and the world's forgiveness for the war in Iraq and to establish a "National Day of Pennance" on which we all get to do the same. Doesn't that sound lovely?

While I support the author's rights to think as he does, and to write a letter to the President asking for these things on his own behalf, I strenuously object to my church requesting it on my behalf (as a member of the church), especially when my opinion has not been consulted.
Had I been consulted, I would have said that the author was a blithering idiot and that he should go blither elsewhere----a purely emotional response. Unfortunately, I'm still so stunned that this resolution is slated to be proposed, that I am unable to wrap my brain around his feeble "explanation" and crush it as I ought.
(Landed Trout Syndrome is a truly debilitating affliction.)

I turned to Prout to ask for his and your help. He said to post the resolution here, so I shall. Have at it, ladies and gentleman. I appreciate any and all help you choose to render.

Yours,

Alice

*********************************************************

DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA
222ND CONVENTION
NOVEMBER 5, 2005 R-10-2005

ON REPENTENCE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ
RESOLVED: That the 222nd Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania calls upon George W. Bush, the president of the United States of America to make a full confession before God and the Peoples of the entire World for his complicity in unjustly waging war on Iraq.

RESOLVED: The 222nd Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania call upon the President and Congress of the United States of America to create a National Day of Penance. On that day, all United States Citizens will be called on to publicly confess our sins that allowed this unjust war to be waged and to ask for the world’s forgiveness.

RESOLVED: The 222nd Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania instructs the secretary of this convention to file the following resolution with the Office o the General Convention of the Episcopal Church at the earliest possible date:

Resolved: The House of __________ concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church calls upon George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America to make a full confession before God and the Peoples of the entire World for his complicity in unjustly waging a war on Iraq.

Be it further resolved: The House of __________ concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church calls upon the President and the Congress of the United States of America to create a National Day of Penance. On that day, all United States Citizens will be called on to publicly confess our sins that allowed this unjust war to be waged and to ask for the world’s forgiveness.

EXPLANATION: The war in Iraq has failed to meet the following principles of a “just war”:
• A just war can only be waged as a last resort.
o At the time that the war was launched UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq making progress in determining that Iraq had no threat of weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspectors were forced to abandon their work so that the war could start.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.
o The legitimacy of the US to interfere with the sovereign nation of Iraq without a UN mandate is certainly questionable, and may well violate this principle.

R-10-05, Page 1 of 3
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
o During the time prior to the beginning of this war, Iraq had not attacked the US, nor any of its allies. Neither did Iraq pose any threat to do so. As it turned out Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction with to make such a threat, and so we essentially attacked an innocent nation.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
o While the “Shock and Awe” tactic was able to quickly destroy the government in power in Iraq, the US government chose to send many fewer troops than competent military advisors had recommended, and so utter chaos followed the initial attack, and continues to this day.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace.
o This may be the stated goal, but peace is a long way from being achieved, with the prospects of civil war looming.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
o Since Iraq has not inflicted any damage on the US, except for the troops involved in the war, and since reliable estimates are that we killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqi people, we have certainly violated this principle.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
o The tactic of “Shock and Awe” caused many more civilian casualties than military casualties. Little care has been taken since the initial stages of the war to protect Iraqi civilians.

Letter to President Bush on Iraq, from Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of Social Development & World Peace, September 13, 2002.

“Perils of Preemptive War; Why America’s place in the world will shift---for the worse—if we attack Iraq,“ by William Galston, September 23, 2002.

“War should be our last resort,” by David Blankenhorn, William A. Galston and John Kelsay, Orlando Sentinel, November 10, 2002.

Every War Must End, second revised edition, Fred Charles Ikle, Columbia University Press, New York, 2005.
R-10-05, Page 2 of 3

The Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART (QQ. 1-189), Question 40.

REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES – Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

President Speech, War on Terror, at Naval Academy Commencement, Navy Marine Corps Memorial Stadium Annapolis, Maryland, George W. Bush, May 27, 2005.

Alice au Wonderland,
I believe this matter is important enough to merit its own thread.
the following is a beginning, no more. a mere skeleton of a rebuttal to the "reverend" and his idiocy.
I shall call upon some FRiends to provide links to relevant data bolstering the points I raise in rebuttal, and to make their own points.

All,
My rebuttal follows below.
Your assistance will be most welcome. Thanks.
-KP-

Mr. Knapps,

I find the depth of your ignorance and the selectivity of your memory, as exposed in your proposed Resolution 10, to be saved from being amusing only by virtue -if such a term may here be used- of it being so appalling.

While it is within your right to call upon anyone you choose to do anything you desire, your reasoning seems ignorant of many salient facts.

The first of which facts must be that neither the President nor Congress has, through the Constitution, the enumerated authority to "create a National Day of Penance" and call upon the citizenry to perform any religious act whatsoever. Indeed, the Congress and -by extension- the rest of the government is specifically barred from ever attempting any such action.

That you either feel free to ignore or are incapable of comprehending the simple phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" -and that you would waste your congregation's time in debating a proposal which could lead to nothing but symbolic posturing- does not augur well for your general objectivity or reasoning skills.

The remainder of your pitiful tract provides more evidence of your shortcomings in these areas.

To wit:

1. Up until the war, the consensus of ALL intelligence agencies, including that of Saddam Hussein, was that Saddam Hussein's regime had WMDs in stock and was actively pursuing development of nuclear weapons. Relevant quotes demonstrating this fact would fill many pages.

2. UN inspectors had been routinely defied by Hussein's regime throughout the Clinton Administration, in violation of some eighteen UN resolutions, including the terms for suspension of hostilities under which the first Gulf War was brought to a halt.
These UN inspection teams were denied access to facilities, were prevented from conducting surprise or unscheduled inspections, were prevented from conducting thorough and unimpeded inspections, and were eventually forced to abandon the attempt and to leave Iraq.
UN Inspection teams were only readmitted into Iraq during the post-9/11 build-up to American military intervention.

3. You claim that Hussein had attacked neither the US nor its allies. This is not precisely so.
a. Hussein paid the families of Palestinian homicide-bombers a bounty of $25,000USD. This policy refunded terrorism, a form of attack-by-proxy, against an ally: Israel.
b. There is strong evidence that members of Hussein's military and security apparatus had operational and intelligence ties with the Al Qaeda network, including training facilities located in Iraq for AQ operatives. While the 9/11 Commission did not conclude that Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks, it also did not conclude that Hussein had no involvement with Al Qaeda.
c. Bearing in mind that the first Gulf War ended in a ceasefire agreement rather than a peace treaty, and that the ceasefire agreement imposed conditions of cooperation upon Hussein's regime, and with which conditions Saddam Hussein's regime continually refused to comply, the present conquest and occupation is a fully legal, UN-mandated, and just military measure taken against an hostile and far from innocent hostile power.

I will allow/encourage other, wiser heads (especially those with real military service and direct experience on the ground in Iraq) to rebut the "reverend" Mr. Knapps' other lunacies.

The day my outfit comes up with a proposal like this and it passes will be the day I finally understand the signal God has sent me... -stevem

G. SIMON HARAK

...A Jesuit priest and author of the books Virtuous Passions and Nonviolence for the Third Millennium, Harak is anti-militarism coordinator of the War Resisters League. Shortly before the cardinals began their conclave just yesterday, Cardinal Ratzinger gave a speech condemning "a dictatorship of relativism." Harak said today: "I am puzzled by this statement. First, it seems to be a logical contradiction: How can relativism be dictatorial? But then I'm compelled to ask, 'What do you mean by "relativism?"' The Catholic hierarchy seems to take certain values -- like the injunction against abortion -- very seriously. But other values they seem to be quite relativistic about. As for example when Jesus says, 'Love your enemies.' With the U.S. Catholic bishops supporting the insupportable invasion of Afghanistan, and being largely silent about the 100,000 Iraqis killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 'Love your enemies' has been rendered so relativistic as to be at best meaningless."

Harak added: "A case in point is Bishop Raymond L. Burke. When he was bishop of LaCrosse diocese in Wisconsin, he told the diocese that the Pope's really strong condemnation of the invasion of Iraq did not carry enough weight to be binding on their consciences. He did, however, say that politicians who supported abortion should be refused communion. His reward for relativizing the Pope -- not to mention contravening Jesus -- was to be made archbishop of St. Louis. That sounds relativistic to me, and the kind of relativism that leads perhaps to dictatorship, but more likely to anarchy."

2. UN inspectors had been routinely defied by Hussein's regime throughout the Clinton Administration, in violation of some eighteen UN resolutions, including the terms for suspension of hostilities under which the first Gulf War was brought to a halt. These UN inspection teams were denied access to facilities, were prevented from conducting surprise or unscheduled inspections, were prevented from conducting thorough and unimpeded inspections, and were eventually forced to abandon the attempt and to leave Iraq. UN Inspection teams were only readmitted into Iraq during the post-9/11 build-up to American military intervention.

UN Resolution 1440 said Saddam had to either SHOW US/THEM these weapons, or SHOW US/THEM that they were destroyed, and HOW they were destroyed. This is NOT a debatable point; it had been agreed to by Iraq. The fact that our Congress waited so long before AUTHORIZING our action may have allowed them time to move them to, perhaps, Syria.

(Above by Watery Tart)

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998

"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998

"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002

"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." Senator John Edwards, October 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Bob Graham, December 2002

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppresive regime...He presents a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistantly prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Senator John Kerry, January, 2003

"I am absolutely confident that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we could see the inspectors being barred gaining entry into a warehouse for hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, April 2003

(The quotes come with full credit to a post by Jeff Head. Thanks, Jeff, for all your hard work.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.