Posted on 10/24/2001 5:44:31 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
From many of your comments, I suspect that you believe that Communist sympathizers have infiltrated Islam and are deliberately radicalizing the faith. What you may be ignoring is that the history of Islam, which extends much further back than than of Communism, seems to show that Islam itself seems to generate this tendency. The "true faith", by which most people mean more moderate Islam, seems to have become that way primarily due to the moderating influence of other cultures.
Have you seen Cheney's comments to the effect that the U.S. has become involved in a battle that most likely will extend beyond most of our lifetimes? This has much to do with why there will never be a formal declaration of war; the national expectation from such a declaration would be that there would be CONCLUSION to such a war. No one in Washington wants to be pinned down in such a fashion. It would behoove all conservatives to question the motivation for such reticence.
how do you explain Joan of Arc?
Have you seen Cheney's comments to the effect that the U.S. has become involved in a battle that most likely will extend beyond most of our lifetimesI haven't seen his recent comments. But I am wondering, will the war outlast us, or totally destroy the world? We can’t be playing word games at this point. Declare war and then kill them all — by any means! We can give no quarter and allow no harbor.
If we can’t build our resolve and steel ourselves for the unthinkable, we are lost. If not, the logical "CONCLUSION" will be Armageddon.
Who killed Ferdinand? . . .
(I wish more would apply this "extends further back" logic to comparisons of the "OBL" and "former Soviet" networks of terror ... =)
But, agreed wholeheartedly ... Islam's PERFECT for that very reason.
Although arguably the most popular heresy on the planet, it's not like it's proven itself terribly successful ... (as evidenced its historical defeats, centuries of malaise and inability to summon on its own the "western energy that dethrones tyrants" in order to shake off the despots and enjoy the full promise of what just and true principles -- we share -- which are extant in Islam).
And the current campaign by which "radical" Islam has boxed Muslims and sympathetic Arab states between the rock that are the Radical agents who organized them and the hard place that is the West who enriched them has got to be the all-time lame move.
Bottom line -- I think we're watching a methodical and calculated "triangulation" of the People of the Book ... almost Diabolical for its incredibly efficient capitalizing on ancient schisms and cloaking in terms of "Holy War" what are purely political and economic conflicts.
I think the radical co-opting of Islam is just as calculated as the U.S. Government's suddenly getting religion in the wake of Santa Fe and ECSR and galvanizing a so-called Christian response that -- with a little help from PR-hacks types like Berlusconi -- could help catalyze the Demand of the People necessary to compel the desired western coalitions.
And with the wild card that is Israel, there's always the opportunity to fine-tune the conflict or "send a message" as necessary (as with the axing of the officer the other day for "Jewish sympathies").
Seems to be working like a charm.
If I had to pinpoint a flaw, I suppose it would be the enrichment and strengthening of China by both Russia and the US. I was reading at lunch today this yellowed crumbly 1943 book on Russia by Bernard Pares ... particularly his chapters: "East or West?" and "Anti-Religion".
Fascinating.
I suspect Russia may have miscalculated its ancient Eastern refuge and Sino-"former Soviet" ties now that both Russia and the East are poised to play offense (instead of defense) against the West.
And if Russia's also overplayed its hand with the freedom of religion thing, it could end up its saving grace of sorts once the Hegemon finally brings us together for real.
That particular wait could be interminable, however, thanks mostly to our own who already have their faces fixed for an Extended period of escalating violence as they prosecute their third Noun Engagement: The War on Terrorism.
To: Marine Inspector
Give the Government the power it needs to eliminate the threat, with ensurences that those powers will be removed, when the threat is removed.
That sounds real nice, but it's not going to happen. In a surprising moment of candor, the Vice-President isn't even pretending it will:
US vice president warns war might not be over in our lifetime
Vice-President Dick Cheney:
"It is different than the Gulf War was, in the sense that it may never end. At least, not in our lifetime,"
"The way I think of it is, it's a new normalcy," he said. "We're going to have to take steps, and are taking steps, that'll become a permanent part of the way we live."
"In terms of security, in terms of the way we deal with travel and airlines, all of those measures that we end up having to adopt in order to sort of harden the target, make it tougher for the terrorists to get at us. And I think those will become permanent features in our kind of way of life."
23 posted on 10/23/01 8:04 AM Pacific by freeeee
It's as if there's some dividend being realized from this surreal status quo.
Struck me as well.
"Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful."
Let's expand the biblical passage a bit, Mt 26:51-54
" With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
Jesus objected to the use of force here, because it was not His will to resist the Sanhedrin guards. His comment that those that live by the sword will die by it can be understood as follows.
God became man to come here and teach, knowing full well He would be killed by those that are fundamentally opposed to His teachings. Those opposers are those that live by the sword. They are the ones that coerce and usurp the wills of others, just as satin had done.
Living by the sword denotes ones will is coerced on others. It is in direct disobedience to His command that one love ones neighbor as one's self. The free will that He gave as a gift to all is not to be usurped by those more proficient in the art of coercion. Death is damnation itself and in order for that to occur the damned must reject the Holy Spirit. That fact of rejection is known only to God, it is His determination and judgement.
War waged in self defence, the defence of Freedom and the defence of other rights are not living by the sword. It is simply the preservation of rights and sovereignty of will that is the right of all. Jesus on this occasion and before Pilate said legions of angels are at His disposal, in His Kingdom. God does not live by the sword.
" Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): " But I say to you not to resist evil"; ... Therefore war is always sinful.
The entire passage (Mt 38-48)should be read, but here's the ending: Mt 5:44-48:
" But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
His commands are to forgive and not seek vengeance. Again it is to love others as yourself. The key to understanding this is understanding what it means to love one's self. You can not love yourself if you turn your will over to another under coercive forces. God didn't do it, and He doesn't expect anyone else to do it either. What He is asking is that those that love Him do their best to be the light of the world in His name. That is giving glory to God. Just as Jesus tossed the money changers out of His house though, He is not asking, or commanding surrender to the will of evil men. That would be contrary to loving Him, and gives glory to satin. The determination to be made by the individual here amounts to a consideration of the consequences and meaning of "turning to the other cheek".
" But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin."
Again, war is a clash of wills that involves coercion. Peace requires the absence of coercion. As long as there is coercion war exists. The last response covers this.
Contemporary relevance:
Terrorists are waging war on the more influential western populations. What they are after is the domination of their wills for their own gain. The west has responded with a campaign to shut down terrorist operations and "educatioinal" centers. This barbarism is pure evil and should not be tolerated. Jesus wouldn't put up with this crap except for the sake of the rest of us.
Just the sort of thing that puts a smile on satin's face.
In this chapter he seems to assume that both sides have if not the same religion, then at least some cultural compatibility. For example, "sovereign" means the same thing for them.
If we concentrated on what we had in common -- in the way of objective truth and the Tao -- it's quite likely they might understand the abject errors on which those who've co-opted them have capitalized.
I think it's extremely shortsighted to write off as abject evil the whole kit and caboodle.
I'm not one of those so deluded that I buy the traditional commie schtick that Christianity and communism are essentially similar. Quite the opposite.
It's just that it's only in starting from that sense of injustice or "hope" for perfection common to all human hearts that we expose the utopians and connivers and illuminate the substantive (albeit more humbling and difficult to accept) truths about our human nature and our lives together on this earth.
With every due respect for the perils of Babel (and the assault that is ritual deicide on the Word and language today), maybe he speaks in the same sense as Lewis does in the Abolition of Man:
| I think that just as you can separate the nature of human essence (that part of being human which affords us dignity and entitled us to uniquely human rights and equal regard) from the accidents of nature whereby our sex, skin, intelligence, status, disposition, etc., the same distinctions can be made between Good and Evil and the spectrum of both. It is irrational to suggest that truths derived to date about the nature of Good and Evil and the Consequences of indulgences either way are not already a part of our human inheritance. Again, because I'm not interested in introducing Revealed Knowledge of any sort ... these are the Right Ways of Attaining Happiness (by ... shudder recognition of duty, obligation, loyality and exercise of obedience, fidelity, courage and industry in those regards). I'm including this whole post of Goetz_von_Berlichingen only because he never wastes words like I do. It's from one of Cornelis's threads: What's Left What's Right and What's a Value?
On the other hand, if knowledge of the true and the good is common property, why is it so few people agree on what it is? Name one value that is good and true that is a common property for everyone. I beg to disagree. It only seems that few people agree because of the Leftist environment in which we live. It is a common tactic of the Deconstructionists to find small discrepancies among ethical systems and then emphasize them to the exclusion of the much more substantial areas of ecumenical accord. By this simple device, the Left seeks to prove that there is no objective morality.
"Almost all of the great religions of the world are based on universalistic principles:Morris Ginsburg, like many others, has pointed out how much most religious doctrines have in common: 'A list of virtues or duties drawn up by a Buddhist would not differ very greatly from one drawn up by a Christian, a Confucianist, a Muhammedan, or a Jew. Formally all of the ethico-religions systems are universalist in scope." (Page 199. James Q. Wilson. The Moral Sense. New York: The Free Press, 1993. ) C.S.Lewis in The Abolition of Man has extracted eight general rules for human conduct, taken purposely from a variety of different cultures. They are: I. The Law of General Beneficence A. Negative: "Never do to other what you would not like them to do to you." - Confucius, Analects II. The Law of Special Beneficence "Is it only the sons of Atreus who love their wives? For every good man, who is right minded, loves and cherishes his own." - Homer, The Iliad III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors "Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, you mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty." - Laws of Manu (Hindu) IV. Duties to Children and Posterity "The Master said, Respect the young." - Confucius, Analects V. The Laws of Justice A. Sexual justice: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity "I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths." - Beowulf VII. The Law of Mercy "I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless." - Egyptian (in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) VIII. The Law of Magnanimity A. "There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from an injury when they can." - M. Tullius Cicero, De Officiis B. "We must not listen to those who advise us "being men to think human thoughts, and being mortal to think mortal thoughts," but must put on immortality as much as possible and strain every nerve to live according to that best part of us, which, being small in bulk, yet much more in its power and honour surpasses all else." - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics C. "Is not the love of Wisdom a practice of death?" - Plato, Phaedo
|
As for the failure of the congress to declare war, we must remember that despite Bush's bellicosity, this is not a war in the traditional sense. The U.S. was not attacked by a nation. Would a declaration of war be made if the perpetrators of terrorist acts were found holed up in Carlsbad Caverns? Was the capture of the Unibomber a result of a congressional act? Despite the spectacle and death toll of 9-11, it was not an act of war, nor can and should it be treated as such. It was an unspeakable crime, and those responsible must be brought to justice, but who would congress declare war on? An individual? That seems a little absurd for the great super power of history to declare war on one person. That would give him equal standing with a sovereign nation. Bush calls it a war, but it is not, no more than poverty and drugs are belligerents in a war. In this case, the perpetrators should be regarded as mass murderers who must be prevented to commit their crimes again, and by any means necessary, including the US military. I believe the president is definitely acting with the proper constitutiional authority in seeking out the murderers and those that harbor them. (Unless they are already dead).
You had some kind words the other day for old father Abraham. I'm convinced he's one of the great saints, a religious genius and Close Personal Friend of God whose Semitic desert hospitality welcomed the triune God in the stranger and pleaded for the lives of sinful men.
For his faith in the Unity of God, Satan despises Abraham and for his sake his descendants -- Jew and Arab alike -- whom he seeks to destroy: the first (and Christians, their younger brothers) through a failure of faith (idolatry, whether in the worship of golden calves or in atheism or the nation state), the second through a disordered and fanatical misapprehension of faith as incitement to jihad. In the end, it all comes down to a realization that the real Enemy is not one man or another, but the Evil One, whose hatred is for Abraham's knowledge of God as One -- and thus to the central and salvific importance of Unity. Think of it, if you like, as Satan's riff on the doctrine of Original Sin.
As O'Connor says, if the evangelists included the demons' remarks in scripture, it's because they reckoned their remarks about Jesus were "pretty good witness."
As John Locke says, "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." You can't adhere to the proper authority requirement without rejecting the whole theory of authority behind the American revolution. That theory happens to be right. Before there was any government around to do this in an organized fashion, God said, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Therefore, there is a duty to shed the blood of the guilty. It must inhere in the person or institution that can best carry it out, since it doesn't specify who is to do it, but says it shall be done. If you're determined to do something, you use the best means you have. Government is merely the delegation of the execution of this duty, to be a terror to doers of evil work.
The important this is a just cause. The other things are nice, but if the cause is just, the war is.
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.