It has been said that every generation is a clean slate and that if civilization is to escape degradation and a slide into barbarity, every generation of children must be civilized, educated, and evangelized... that is, taught human virtues, informed of the truth about life, the universe, God and man, and converted to choose the good and avoid the evil...

If not, if we fail to pass on the best to the young, when they grow they will take the reigns of public policy and turn them to self-destructive and other-destructive ends... they will not only fail to make true human progress, they will actively destroy what fragile civilization we have painstakenly created.

But in the world at large this is especially true: world wars only remove current barbarians. Of themselves they do not prevent future ones. That is what "peace time" is for.

I look at Iraq and see a failure of evangelization during the 1970's and 1980's. I see North Korea and see an equal failure of evangelization from the late 1980's throughout the 1990's. Who has been evangelizing the millions of North Korean refugees in China?

Prayer for peaceful solutions to world conflicts is based on the hope that Grace can move the hearts of people who are willing to be peacemakers! But if the human virtue and human capacity and habit of rational thought is missing, grace will not have much to work with.

This is why evangelization and human formation is so essential among the young in every generation. Once a child grows up as a violent and ambitious young man, it takes a miracle to convert him into a peaceloving, self-controlled and self-sacrificing agent of peace.

This is also why humanity has frequent spasms of war: because we so often and so mind-numbingly miss great opportunities for true evangelization and reform when we have the chance!

Thus we see North Korean Communism doggedly lead the world towards war by re-starting a plutonium producing nuclear reactor while daily promising to produce atom bombs with which to threaten all neighbors unless said neighbors unilaterally surrender to their every whim.

How can one reasonably negotiate with such a power? Under such leadership there is little the people can do to save themselves and there is little option for America but capitulate in order to stall for time... or go to war to avoid a worse case scenario tomorrow.

But even now there is time: we can and must support those evangelization efforts aimed at promoting the human, intellectual and spiritual development, growth, and holiness of North Korean refugees in China and elsewhere... with the hope that eventually THESE people will re-populate and LEAD their country back into the civil and peaceloving world.

Merely praying for peace or opposing American action won't cut it. God always works through human mediation - and so we need to supply it

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003

Answers

There is obviously also a domestic application here between evangelization and moral decline: because the Church failed to catechize the youth effectively from 1970-2003, Catholic youth are just as likely to have pre-marital sex, have abortions, get divorced, commit suicide, and breakdown in mental illnesses as the rest of the population!

This is wrong.

The faith (*formerly called "The Way" and "The Good News" signifying both its moral and doctrinal dimensions) has ALWAYS BEEN COUNTERCULTURAL AND A CATALYST OF HIGH CULTURE/CIVILIZATION.

We have the best news about the human condition and our morality produces superior married couples, singles, and public servants...or at least it should.

Crime and marital breakdown is a direct fruit of the lack of effective Catholic to Catholic evangelization and spiritual formation.

Yes, pray for peace. Yes, pray for the young... but God also needs you to be his hands, eyes, and tongue: if we do not "make disciples of the nations" we will become thralls of those nations. If we fail to evangelize the young, we will be buried by them. If we fail to produce the best art, literature, and philosophies of life, we will be the butt of degrading art, literature, and philosophy.

If you would escape martyrdom and times of peril, take the opportunities you are given to convert people while they are open.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

"God always works through human mediation - and so we need to supply it"

I doubt it. I think this way of looking at things is a nuvo- fabrication of the age of enlightenment, so-called.

Not a statement against you personally, Joe. Just a statement against some newer ideas and in favor of understandings lost.

"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who enclosed the sea with doors when, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and I placed boundaries on it and set a bolt and doors, and I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; and here shall your proud waves stop'? Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal; and they stand forth like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and the uplifted arm is broken. Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this. Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!"

...etc and on and on from there.

Where do we get this idea that the only way God works is through us? Sure, He can work through us, but I would wager when He does dot it, that it is done in a manner that we are not even aware of His work through us at the time.

I would wager even more that the things we think we do in God's name, as His work, and with His blessing, aren't. Who are we?

God works in spite of us.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 03, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

I appreciate your response, however, theologically (and philosophically) your interpretation of Job is incorrect.

Neither in the Old nor in the New Testament is God the only actor with Israel a spectator. Man has always had a role to play in the damnation and salvation of the human race.

Certainly grace (God's action in our souls) is primary. But human freedom (love) is always essential and God wills that this be so.

Otherwise there would be no moral life to speak of. Otherwise there would be no heaven above nor hell below.

I am not making up Pelagianism by claiming that we need to do our part and not expect a ex nihilo or Deus ex machina miracle (an effect without a secondary cause)...

St Paul makes this clear when he asks how people will believe if no one is sent to them! Jesus makes this clear when in Matthew he commands his apostles to go make disciples of the nations, teaching them to obey all that he commanded.... in other words, men will not know what God commands of them (the good news) unless they are given this revelation by other men!

We cooperate in the work of God. He has ALWAYS worked through mediation except in the Garden.

He usually worked through angels - or theophanies (Fire, smoke, earthquake, whispering breeze) never directly in the Old Testament.

He revealed truths through angels and theophanies in the New Testament...and finally in His Incarnation, he still continues this mediation by word of mouth and miracles - personally and mediatedly through his apostles (those who are sent)... down to our days.

You simply cannot read the New Testament - especially Acts, without seeing that had those fishermen and Paul not gone where they went, spoken how and what they said, and done what they did, real people would not have heard and come to believe and come to experience the presence and will of God in their lives!

If this is NOT mediation, what is?

God has chosen to work through his creatures. Not by metaphysical necesity but by choice.

Similarly we can (metaphysically, possibly) become holy without the aid of other creatures - in that God COULD sanctify us from the womb...but experience teaches us that normally 99.99999% of the time, He has chosen to work through his creatures to reveal Himself to souls one at a time. And this "revealing of self" is called "Evangelization".

Any questions?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

This may be over-simplifying things, but one of my favorite quotes has been, "Pray as if it all depends upon God; Act as if it all depends upon you," attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola.

God "can" do anything He Wills, with or without His creatures. But He put us here for some reason.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 03, 2003.

Hi Joe. I think what you think I am saying is not what I think I'm saying.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 03, 2003.

What are you saying? Are we perhaps just stressing different aspects of the same thing? After all, "in spite of us" does not contradict "with us" right?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

I would get into it, Joe, and it would be fun and lucrative for the mind I guess, but I think I'll just let it go. Lent is coming, plus lately my own eyes are rolling back into my head in "whatever" mode, people such as Christine are glazing over into an oblivion of boredom, people have left, other people are having their own personal second coming, and I myself would rather just don rags and heap ashes upon my head for my varied and sundry sins against the Almighty God which are ever piling up unto the heavens and crying out for vengeance... and just do something brain dead during Lent. I guess what I was alluding to is that we are dust and to dust we shall return and whatnot. This will be my second to last of the last three posts after the one where I said I was bailing for Lent the second time before last. =) Gotta go.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 03, 2003.

Hi Emerald. May God bless you and yours during this Lenten season and give you His grace and peace in preparation for a golden Easter Morning...

God bless,

Joseph

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2003.

Thanks Joe; the same blessing on you and your family and friends there.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 04, 2003.

When given a choice between judging Communism and judging the Church, Communism was allowed to go scot free while the Church and all of its functioning came under opposition scrutiny. John XXIII had ruled early on that Communism and its evils would never be discussed at the new Council they were convening. In all fairness to John XXIII, negotiations were underway with several communist nations for the release of certain Catholic clergymen whom they were holding prisoner, so John XXIII may have felt that condemning communism might in some way impede those negotiations. Be that as it may, he did what he did; Pilate no doubt had his reasons too.

Pilate had no intention of condemning Christ to be crucified. He even acquitted Him four different times. Likewise, most of those bishops, cardinals, and other prelates who came to the Second Vatican Council had no intention of injuring the Church, (even though most of the pet theories many of them wished to inflict on the Church were truly heretical). What they intended was one thing; what they ended up doing was quite another.

Pilate literally washed his hands of the matter, thus relinquishing his authority in the matter and allowing the angry mob to decide what was to be done. Vatican II likewise did not so much directly mandate the chaos described in this chapter's first paragraph as cause many (or all) members of the hierarchy to relinquish the authority they had previously exercised to prevent such madness from happening.

After that trial of course comes the Way of Sorrows and the Crucifixion. All of the postconciliar changes to the liturgy, to the way Vatican politics works, and to such basic documents of the Church such as the Code of Canon law, all together constitute the Way of Sorrows. The presence of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Sacrament of an irreverent, anti-Catholic, and yet still valid Mass was his Crucifixion and sufferings on the Cross. The frequent invalidity of the new sacraments (as shall be explained in later chapters) is His death and burial.

Just as the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51) thus desacralizing it by granting free access between the more and less holy areas, the once Catholic Churches are similarly desacralized by the removal of altar rails, rood screens, or even the iconostasis (in the Eastern rite churches). Likewise, the stripping bare of the altar, the consigning of the Eucharist to a side chapel or other location totally outside the sanctuary, and the absence of Mass on Good Friday all correspond to the present expulsion of the Church with its true and valid Sacraments to, at best, some sort of side chapel, and at worst, some place totally outside the previous sanctuary, and the absence of valid sacraments in the New Rite. Just as Christ died after being condemned to die by Pontius Pilate, His Mystical Body, the Church, dies after being condemned to die by Vatican II.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

John XXIII agreed to the condition that no direct and specific attacks would be directed toward Communism in the verbal presentations delivered from the floor at Council sessions, in order to secure the presence of Russian and other bishops at the council. He technically kept his word. However, the scathing denouncements of "all forms of totalitarian rule" which were subsequently issued by the Council left no doubt in the mind of any rational person as to exactly what and whom they were denouncing.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2003.

Have any of you given much thought about how best to evangelize the Muslim world? or the Asian world?

Is Western evangelization even possible? Perhaps we should each try to befriend and witness to Muslim and Asian Americans first so as to remove the whole cultural and political differences from the equation?

Any ideas?

Peace.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

why not lauch a full-on attack on the poor, starving Muslims of Iraq --- that should make you a great many Muslim friends.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 11, 2003.

In 1980 the US began to help Muslim freedom fighters in Afganistan. In 1991 we saved Muslim Kuwaitis...in 1992 we brokered a peace deal on behalf of Muslim Palestinians and have certainly provided a check on Jewish settlements by supporting the idea of a Palestinian state...In 1996 we saved Muslims in Bosnia and in 1998 in Kosovo. In 2001 we liberated Afganistan and have been doing nothing but spend money to rebuild their nation ever since...

So what makes you think we have EVER gone to war with "poor Muslims"?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

Oops. I just remembered that during Thomas Jefferson's administration, the new US Navy did briefly settle a small dispute with the Barbary pirates - which the European powers routinely bought off with an annual "tribute" of a million pounds. The US wasn't rich enough to pay the bribe so we simple sank a couple of the pirate's vessels, shelled their town, and let it be known that the US republic wouldn't play the European game.

So the only other time the US has specifically gone to war with "poor Muslims" was 1805 or something like that. Imagine that...even then we were the de facto "policeman" of the seas! The gall.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

In 1980 the US began to help Muslim freedom fighters in Afganistan.

**** done in self interest: anti-Communist, not pro Muslim. Muslims know that. they also know that in the process you created the Taliban. that's the point, the US needs to think through the long terms consequences.

In 1991 we saved Muslim Kuwaitis...

***** fighting against Iraqi Muslims.

in 1992 we brokered a peace deal on behalf of Muslim Palestinians and have certainly provided a check on Jewish settlements by supporting the idea of a Palestinian state...

**** the US is consistently pro - Israeli. its supports the Israelis militarily and financially. it has used its UN position more times that any other state in blocking UN initiatives against Israel. it allows Israel to remain in breach of a string of resolutions. it stands by as Israel uses the cover of the Gulf crisis to further violate the human rights of the PAlestinians (great recruitment for the Suicide Bombers, btw). this goes to the heart of the problem -- rather than trying to buddy up with fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim, maybe you should think about how the US could approach the Palestine question in a more even-handed way.

In 1996 we saved Muslims in Bosnia and in 1998 in Kosovo. In 2001 we liberated Afganistan and have been doing nothing but spend money to rebuild their nation ever since...

**** see above, you created the Afghanistan problem, you should therefore pay for it.

So what makes you think we have EVER gone to war with "poor Muslims"?

***** see above

**** NB you also supplied most of the terrorists states with their weapons of terror. Rumsfield was personally involved in gearing up Iraq (again, self interest anti Iran motives).

"Oops. I just remembered that during Thomas Jefferson's administration, the new US Navy did briefly settle a small dispute with the Barbary pirates - which the European powers routinely bought off with an annual "tribute" of a million pounds. The US wasn't rich enough to pay the bribe so we simple sank a couple of the pirate's vessels, shelled their town, and let it be known that the US republic wouldn't play the European game."

**** isn't the US trying to bribe Turkey and the floating voters at the UN, hasn't it blackballed Germany, and won't it now blackball France. Foreign Aid is used as bribery by the US all the time. So the only other time the US has specifically gone to war with "poor Muslims" was 1805 or something like that. Imagine that...even then we were the de facto "policeman" of the seas! The gall

**** the gall, indeed. see above.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 12, 2003.

In 1980 the US began to help Muslim freedom fighters in Afganistan.

**** done in self interest: anti-Communist, not pro Muslim. Muslims know that. they also know that in the process you created the Taliban. that's the point, the US needs to think through the long terms consequences.

++++ So what? Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were? We STILL HELPED both the Afgan refugees and their freedom fighters... and by defeating the Soviets in the Cold War by bankrupting them, we made their withdrawl that much more likely.

Secondly, the Afgans didn't WANT us deciding who was going to rule their country afterwards anyway! We pulled out precisely to NOT be the "evil empire" or imperialists we're always accused of being! In the civil war that ensued the Taliban came out on top. And lookee here, Mohammed! They were Wahabis-ish, just like our friends the Saudis! We couldn't care less what form of Islam they followed... until they went out of their way to hit us...

Or what? Everyone else in the world can act for their own vested self interest except the US? I didn't even mention Somalia!

In Somalia We had ZERO motive to go in there except the humanitarian one of feeding starving people...people who were starving because of their own stupid civil war and breakdown of civilization....

I don't recall seeing any of your Muslim brothers taking up collections to save those people...or going there to feed them and stop their little Muslim on Muslim civil wars. I guess fraternal charity is exclusively a Christian thing huh?

Secondly, WE didn't create the warlords and WE didn't start their little civil wars. WE didn't force anyone to shoot their neighbor... and we only got into a shooting match because BILL (the idiot) Clinton sent in the Rangers to get Addid...

Even after we pulled out we still sent those people food and aid!

In 1991 we saved Muslim Kuwaitis...

***** fighting against Iraqi Muslims. +++++ Again, WHO STARTED THAT WAR? Mohammed, you are silly. We didn't force, command, or inspire Saddam to invade Kuwait. If you think so, prove it. Conspiracy buffs are long on "plausible explainations" explaining away human free will and ambition and passing every occurance off on those faraway evil Americans...without even a shred of proof.

in 1992 we brokered a peace deal on behalf of Muslim Palestinians and have certainly provided a check on Jewish settlements by supporting the idea of a Palestinian state...

**** the US is consistently pro - Israeli. its supports the Israelis militarily and financially. it has used its UN position more times that any other state in blocking UN initiatives against Israel. it allows Israel to remain in breach of a string of resolutions. it stands by as Israel uses the cover of the Gulf crisis to further violate the human rights of the PAlestinians (great recruitment for the Suicide Bombers, btw). this goes to the heart of the problem -- rather than trying to buddy up with fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim, maybe you should think about how the US could approach the Palestine question in a more even-handed way.

++++ Mohammed, do you think the surrounding arab countries would respect French UN "peacekeepers" for one second if the Jews pulled back to their 1946 border and sold all their weapons? Iraq isn't in danger of ceasing to exist as a country and as a people. Israel is. THAT'S A FACT. There are no countries bordering Iraq with entrenched ideological and religious fanatics craving its total annihilation.

Another FACT: Israel wasn't founded thanks to the United States Marines. They beat the surrounding Arab armies all by their little own selves...talk about galling defeats!...without massive US aid or armaments. In 1946, in 1953, and in 1967. They didn't even start buying our stuff until the late 70's! And Mohammed, they DIDN'T START all those wars!

Oh, but I see...it's easier to feel good about the manliness of Arab fighters if you think you're defeated by a Superpower rather than by a couple of Jews, backs to the sea, defending a country the size of Connecticut.

I also notice how strange it is to see Palestinians being treated as second class citizens in other Muslim countries. Really odd. Maybe you can explain why the universal brotherhood of believers in Islam is so full of internal rivalries, civil strife, hatreds, clan and tribal warfare and grudges....

Since you lambaste the US for being anti-Soviet not pro-Muslim, I think you're simply anti-Jewish, not pro-Palestinian. Prove me wrong.

In 1996 we saved Muslims in Bosnia and in 1998 in Kosovo. In 2001 we liberated Afganistan and have been doing nothing but spend money to rebuild their nation ever since...

**** see above, you created the Afghanistan problem, you should therefore pay for it. ++++ see above, YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY POINT ABOUT BOSNIA AND KOSOVO MOHAMMED! No oil, no possible US advantage in the Balkans... and everyone else tried fruitlessly to end the warfare: EU, UN... but it wasn't stopped until the US of A went in, bombed the Serbs and rolled in the 1st Armored Division. Alot of Balkan Muslims love us. I wonder why...

The Afgans created their own post-Soviet problems. Not everything that happens around the world is the result, direct or indirect of Americans you know! (Although it does make us free so all-powerful and supreme to constantly be blamed for everything...after all, without us apparently NOTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE! Thanks for the support!

So what makes you think we have EVER gone to war with "poor Muslims"?

***** see above +++++ see above: with all the vast oil wealth - money you get from the big bad West, how come there are STILL "poor muslims"?! We don't force your countries to spend what they spend on armaments. Sure we'll sell them things if they want to buy them...and the same stuff we sell the Israelis... but no one forces you to buy them. You guys don't even have to work in your own oil fields! Foreigners do all the grunt labor, Philippina maids do all your laundry and other menial tasks.... your women are virtual slaves... if your countries are a mess you'd better start looking for other people to blame than far away Americans.

**** NB you also supplied most of the terrorists states with their weapons of terror. Rumsfield was personally involved in gearing up Iraq (again, self interest anti Iran motives).

+++++ OK, Mohammed show me how the US supplied North Korea and Iran with their weapons? As for Iraq, why shouldn't the US (and France, and Germany, and Russia and China....) have worked to support a regime which at least in 1980 wasn't frothing at the mouth anti- American, calling us the Great Satan and calling for the murder of every American regardless of rank or civil status?

Here's another question, Mohammed... You worship the God of Abraham. Now why does the God of Abraham, the Creator of the World, need a bunch of Arabs running around blowing up school buses or killing women, children and other civilians? If the revelation of His will is authentic, is true, and He's our creator and we're his children, then why in the world would Islam have to resort to violence instead of peaceful missionary proselytism?

If the prophet is truly "the last prophet" and he is as holy and blessed as the Muslims claim...then why the death threats and actual murderous violence against those who simply don't believe this? Christians don't go around killing people for blasphemy against Jesus - and yet we're still growing in numbers! (And don't haul up the Middle Ages... we're not IN THE MIDDLE AGES.)

You think the truth about God, the universe and man is not in and of itself strong enough to stand on its own in an open dialogue with unbelievers? You think the threat of violence is God's real will for his revelation? It seems alot more like vested self-interest on the part of some Arab tribe than God's true word to humanity! I thought you guys studied Aristotelian logic and dialectic? What has become of the great learning center in Qom?

Here's a hint why all your precious little Jihads are doomed to failure: up to now your civilization has only had to face the remnant refugees and old women and children on other nations. It's easy to carve out an empire in North Africa and the Middle East - there was hardly anyone in your way! So it's easy for your men to get in the cultural habit of being bullies. The Taliban even chided us for bombing them from 30,000 feet rather than "face them on the ground, like men." But notice that now, with American soldiers "on the ground" those brave warriors of God (sic) are no where to be found.

They met real men on the battlefield and fled into the hills.

And bullies - be they "terrorists" who target unsuspecting civilians or Saladins who march at the head of an army of hundreds of thousands against 12,000 Crusaders have things so easy a myth of superiority is created - and your armed victories past make you think your religion is the reason rather than luck and overwhelming numbers.

But bullies never win. We Americans were founded on the premise that we can beat every bully nation on earth - because our values are better and the God we worship is Truth Himself, and the resulting civil society we created is simply more humane for all its defects and foibles - we of all the peoples on earth are daily struggling to be BETTER, to IMPROVE, to build up this garden and subdue it. And also because we aren't so arrogant as to think war and conquest and peace is a piece of cake. Tyrants and dictators always think war is easy - because their enemies are almost always defenseless.

**** isn't the US trying to bribe Turkey and the floating voters at the UN, hasn't it blackballed Germany, and won't it now blackball France. Foreign Aid is used as bribery by the US all the time.

++++ If you call it a bribe... but recently they're not taking it and so we'll go in - if war is needed, alone.

As for "blackballing" anyone... come'on, we've invested too much of our "self-interested" national security in France and Germany to "blackball" them. Haven't you been paying attention? Europe has never, ever, had more than 50 years of peace in 2000 years! But thanks to NATO and US bases everywhere, the Europeans don't even think about fighting among themselves! And they've always been free to still hate our guts or fondle superiority complexes against us! Even though we militarily occupy them more than we occupy the Middle East, they're still free to do whatever they want domestically including voting against us in the UN.

We're not an Empire Mohammed...America is like nothing the world has ever known.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear +++ I'd rather you learn how to argue like a man. It's apparent from the Middle East that alot of Muslims don't want to fight like men.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

And "arguing like a man" isn't meant as an insult (I don't even know you and have no reason to be personally antagonistic with you).

If you are going to criticize the US for this or that action, just be ready to justify your critique using real history and real sources.

Too much "argument" is just affirmations without backing.

One can deal with, dialogue with, argue with people who have reasons for saying what they say... but if there is no reason other than hate or anger - we may as well be speaking in uncomprehensible languages because nothing is truly communicated.

Peace be on your beard

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.

is it legitimate in debate to impute ideas or intentions upon the other that simply do not exist? surely this is a classic tactic of the "tub-thumper". see the detailed points made above and the further response that will follow.

furthermore, there must value is recognising that statements like "One can deal with, dialogue with, argue with people who have reasons for saying what they say... but if there is no reason other than hate or anger - we may as well be speaking in uncomprehensible languages because nothing is truly communicated." can go both ways. and i would add "pride" to "hate" and "anger", all characteristics that do not mix well with open debate.

as promised, further detailed response will follow, on the points - and devoid of any insults, antagonism or personal angles, no matter what the provocation.

i take it that the statement "It's apparent from the Middle East that alot of Muslims don't want to fight like men." was meant in jest and not in provocation; but i would strongly suggest that this is neither the time nor the place for such "hilarities". i only hope that there are no Muslims observing. they will (justifiably) fell pretty annoyed if they are.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 12, 2003.

aside from the Muslim "jokes", there is one other disturbing view expressed above that merits specific answer.

you say -- "Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were?"

i quote New Advent on Just War:

"Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil- doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.""

i repeat -- "For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention."

motive is 100% COMPLETELY RELEVANT unless you do not agree with Catholic theology.

You also say: "In Somalia We had ZERO motive to go in there except the humanitarian one of feeding starving people...". so you believe that, when there is actually a very commendible motive, that amounts to ZERO?!?!

it is good to support you own nation, but bad when it blinds you to God's teaching.

as promised, further detailed response will follow, on the points - and devoid of any insults, antagonism or personal angles, no matter what the provocation.

PS you must know that not all Muslms have beards or was that another "joke"?? i repeat, i only hope that there are no Muslims observing or they may fell a little insulted by such generalisations.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 13, 2003.

Thank you for actually proving my point for me.

The US support of Afgani independence and freedom from communist and Russian rule in the 1980's was a case of anti-Soviet and pro-Afgan US involvement... sure we were chiefly there to hit the soviets...but the means and end result of our involvement was the liberation and independence of the Afgan people - so much so, that once the Russians left, so did we!

We didn't occupy or rule the Muslims! We fought for their freedom, and once they had it, we left. How much more pure can a country's "motives" be?!

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we occupy them, then even if we raise their standard of living 100 fold, we'd be damned for not giving them their "freedom" and when we do leave them alone, - and thus their standard of living stays in the 12th century...we're damned for not "doing enough"!

Meanwhile no one seems to notice that the Afganis TODAY like us and want us to stick around... that the US is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild a nation with NO OIL. Women and children are free to go to school for the first time in a generation...and do we get credit for it? nooooooooooo

And "we" are not even the only show in town - although it was "our" war and our SOF forces, we've turned the show over to the UN.... so much for being an Imperialist power!

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

with respect, are you changing your position? you said "Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were?"

i quoted New Advent which confirms that motive is 100% COMPLETELY RELEVANT.

are you changing your position? if so, please have the good grace to respond. otherwise, please provide yr argument(s) that accepted CAtholic theology is wrong on this point.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 13, 2003.

Mohammed, Your original accusation which prompted me to post was to claim America always fights against poor muslims...and if we ever do help some, it's by accident!

But in case after case (Afganistan, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo...) I've shown you that no, actually, we have fought FOR POOR MUSLIMS in regions that have no OIL and no particular advantage to us.

Your original gripe about the first US involvement in Afganistan was to miss the point: we helped save them from the Russians and then left them alone.

You said "Yeah, but you only helped Muslims because you hated the Russians"...as though our motives (anti-Soviet) made our actions (liberating Afganistan and then leaving) loose all moral worth in the eyes of God and man.

And in Catholic doctrine at least, the police man who arrests a wanted criminal while freeing his latest victim is not guilty of anything just because he didn't primarily set out to free that particular person! The Soviets deserved to be beaten. And the Afgans deserved to be liberated not for American values but because of human values...

My point was, regardless of our motives - which at least publically were always and solely to liberate the Afgans and then leave them be... is a worthy motive in its own right. But of course, you can't liberate enslaved peoples without liberating them FROM some tyranny.

So since our actions simultaneously helped to oust the Russians while liberating the Afgans - and we didn't stay around looting them or otherwise enforcing either our religious or civic values on them... what difference would "motive" make? Good was accomplished!

You just couldn't accept my point that America has fought on behalf of poor Muslims. You seemed incapable of giving credit where credit is due. And that lack of gratitude "yeah but you didn't really do it for their own good..." is unjust.

We went into Somalia solely for "their own good" - ditto with Bosnia and Kosovo... and in the latter two cases, without UN authorization, but then of course with Bill the Master Socialist Liberal in charge, the UN didn't care and neither did the vast hodge-podge of leftist, former marxist agitators masquerading as "peaceniks".

I think those in favor of Iraq today are more anti-Republican than anti-American. They want America to loose so that Bush will loose, and if that happens once a Socialist Democrat takes power, the world will suddenly rejoice at everything the "US" does - regardless of its motive and real impact on 3rd world countries...

Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea... all countries supposedly "helped" by the Clinton administration are still basket cases today and no one cares! No one is outraged or marching in the streets because Bill Clinton wiped out the middle class in Haiti, bungled the Somalia relief operation, did nothing to stop genocide in Africa, and tried to bribe a ruthless communist regime in Asia!

But the moment different US administation tries to actually SOLVE problems, all hell breaks loose around the globe. People now "hate" the US for liberating Afganistan! And they're threatening us with endless civilian bloodshed at home if we liberate Iraq!

I wonder...what possible motive could these people have?

I'm sorry if my long winded paragraphs have made this less than clear.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

let me ask the question again.

1. you said "Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were?" 2. i quoted New Advent which confirms that motive is 100% COMPLETELY RELEVANT in a Just War analysis. that is doctrine,pure & simple.

now i can simpify this no further.

so, are you changing your position? a/ if so, please have the good grace to respond on point. b/ otherwise, please provide yr argument(s) that accepted Catholic theology is wrong on this point.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 13, 2003.

1) "who cares" does not equal "Motives don't matter".

If anything it was rhetorical because you completely missed the point: we did alot of good for "poor muslims" and asked nothing in return.

2) my argument is that by focusing on motive (anti-Soviet vs. pro-Muslim) you still have to admit that US action directly benefited "poor muslims", and thus, the US does not go out of its way to hurt "poor muslims" rather than help them.

Motive is only one element of a moral decision as to the worth of an action... after all, Liberals typically tout their motives as being so worthy that no matter how things turn out, they are good people... yet great motives and terrible results still makes for moral culpability.

3) It's like you claiming that Mother Theresa's good work for the poor isn't really good because she "only did it do go to heaven"... when such a motive doesn't make the works automatically evil or harmful!

I don't know how easier to make it.

You still haven't proven that US involvement in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were anything but purely humanitarian - having nothing to do with US self interest or "national security" - yet fought for the good of "poor muslims".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

OK, again, one last time. this is the background:

1. you said "Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were?" 2. i quoted New Advent which confirms that motive is 100% COMPLETELY RELEVANT in a Just War analysis. that is doctrine,pure & simple.

This is the Question: are you changing your position? a/ if so, please have the good grace to respond on point. b/ otherwise, please provide yr argument(s) that accepted Catholic theology is wrong on this point.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 13, 2003.

OK one more time.

My "who cares" is not the same thing as "Motive doesn't matter".

It's rhetorical for "anti-Soviet/pro-Afgan" is a false dicotomy which avoids the more crucial matter of what the US ACTUALLY DID there. We actually DID:

Feed and clothe and house the refugees in Pakistan, arm their freedom fighters, and help them recapture their country....

So what if we did all this primarily to give the Soviets a black eye? Didn't they deserve to get a black eye?

It's not like we were blowing a trumpet before giving alms - both motives were good ones: defeat communism, restore freedom. Since both motives are good, who cares which one was dominant?

Both motives btw were factors in the same "proxy-war": the Soviets had no right to invade Afganistan, and the freedom fighters had a right to re-take their country.

And... they were "poor muslims" aided by the USA - for no oil, for no basing rights, for nothing. AND YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. Joe

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.

i implore you to examine the significance of the beliefs that you express:

1 you said "Who cares "Mohammed" WHAT our motives were?". you also denigrate the noble motive behind the intervention in Somalia. you must, therefore, believe that motive is irrelevant to the morality of war. these are your words. see above.

2 however, this is 100% contrary to Catholic doctrine

Ergo: your morality is not the morality of the Catholic Church. your arguments are not Catholic. they are, in truth, closely assimilated to the morality of the locker room or the bar; they are symptomatic of humanism, as i believe it is called.

Catholic morality is set down by the Church as it interprets the Scriptures and all other relevant materials. we are blessed that we have such certainty in our doctrine, a blessing unique to our Church.

maybe you disagree with this?

if not, i would re-iterate my question

a/ please have the good grace to admit that motive is all important and that your analysis is misguided. OR

b/ otherwise, please provide yr argument(s) that accepted Catholic theology is wrong on this point.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 13, 2003.

Look, I don't understand how you can say my argument was contrary to Catholic moral doctrine.

I didn't say "motive doesn't matter in moral arguments".

I said: what about helping the poor Muslims fight the Russians in Afganistan?

You countered: "yeah, well you weren't pro-Muslim, you were only anti- Soviet" - as if our actions in favor of poor Muslims was automatically evil because we had a secondary motive... yet HOW COULD WE HELP THEM without simultaneously helping them get rid of the Soviets?

That's why I said "who cares what our motive was?" in Afganistan.

I explained how a rhetorical "who cares" is valid when - in the case of 1980 Afganistan, the US actions (arming the Afgan freedom fighters while caring for refugees) were simultaneously anti-Soviet and pro- Afgan. Since both motives are valid, who cares which one was primary? Even if the anti-Soviet motive was the primary motive, it does not vitiate (make evil) the resulting actions (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, liberating captives).

If being pro-Afgan was our primary motive - the actions we performed (feeding, housing refugees, arming the freedom fighers, etc.) would not have been different.

In either case, the motives (anti-Soviet, and pro-Afgan) were and are paiseworthy from a Catholic moral perspective. And the actions were also praiseworthy. We didn't arm them with nuclear weapons! Our contributions (chiefly Stinger SAMs, small arms, logistics, training, and intelligence) were proportionate to the threat and otherwise followed Just War criteria in that it was successful and spared civilians as much as possible... and the US didn't replace the USSR as overlord of liberated Afganistan!

Yet you refuse to engage me on this argument.

With respect to Somalia, my whole and entire point was again - our motives were solely and entirely humanitarian - not anti-Muslim, or anti-Soviet, or anti- anything!

In that case, there was no other motive besides helping "poor Muslims" because the "enemy" wasn't a threat to the US or anyone else.

President Bush Sr. - and the world - saw hundreds of thousands of Somali children dying of hunger ... while warlords continued a civil war... and the US intervened with 22,000 troops. Within 6 months the famine was over, people were fed.

Again, as I argued - a clear case of America going out of its way to specifically help "poor Muslims" free of charge! We demanded nothing in return. Not basing rights, not oil (they have none), not trade (they have nothing to trade)....

And yet people like YOU MOHAMMED claim that the US has never done anything to help "poor Muslims"! That this is why the Muslim world "hates us"!

If you are Catholic and accept the importance of motive in judging moral actions, then you have to admit with me, that Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were all military actions taken by the United States on behalf of "poor Muslims" for no anti-Soviet or pro-American motive...

Both our actions and our motives were good and directly benefited "poor Muslims".

My argument is not "against using motives in moral judgements" at all. Nuanced? Yes. Anti-Catholic? No.

You apparently are just not reading what I write. "Who cares" is not the same thing as "motives don't matter" when the only two possible motives of a given action are both valid and simultaneous.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

OK Mohammed here's an analogous example:

A crazed killer goes on a shooting spree. He enters a MacDonalds, kills a dozen people and takes a little girl hostage. The police arrive and tell him to let her go... He refuses. They shoot him dead.

Now, what were their motives? To stop an unjust aggressor or to liberate the little girl?

Both motives are morally valid. But which one was primary?

How could they have saved the girl without disabling the unjust aggressor? How could they have disabled the unjust aggressor without simultaneously liberating the girl?

If the worthy action has two valid motives, WHO CARES WHICH ONE WAS PRIMARY?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

"me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 14, 2003.

Hi Mohammed,

i would re-phrase your question to me...

a/ please have the good grace to admit that motive is NOT all important and that your analysis is misguided. OR

b/ otherwise, please provide yr argument(s) that accepted Catholic theology is wrong on this point.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

OK, lets move on to the rascist remarks that you have been posting.

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 14, 2003.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE COMMENTS -- which are addressed to the Muslims of this world:

“You guys don't even have to work in your own oil fields! Foreigners do all the grunt labor, Philippina maids do all your laundry and other menial tasks.... your women are virtual slaves... if your countries are a mess you'd better start looking for other people to blame than far away Americans.”

“...why does the God of Abraham, the Creator of the World, need a bunch of Arabs running around blowing up school buses or killing women, children and other civilians? If the revelation of His will is authentic, is true, and He's our creator and we're his children, then why in the world would Islam have to resort to violence instead of peaceful missionary proselytism?”

“....up to now your civilization has only had to face the remnant refugees and old women and children on other nations. It's easy to carve out an empire in North Africa and the Middle East - there was hardly anyone in your way! So it's easy for your men to get in the cultural habit of being bullies.”

“….your armed victories past make you think your religion is the reason rather than luck and overwhelming numbers”

“It's apparent from the Middle East that alot of Muslims don't want to fight like men.”

“Peace be on your beard”

AND THESE ONES addressed to Europe: “Europe has never, ever, had more than 50 years of peace in 2000 years! But thanks to NATO and US bases everywhere, the Europeans don't even think about fighting among themselves! And they've always been free to still hate our guts or fondle superiority complexes against us!"

"Even though we militarily occupy them [EUROPE] more than we occupy the Middle East, they're still free to do whatever they want domestically including voting against us in the UN”

-- I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com), March 15, 2003.

bump

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 16, 2003.

Message to "I'd rather eat my own ear (Mohammed.Mohammed@Friends.com)" --

You listed eight quotations from earlier messages written by Joe Stong. Before listing them, you referred to them as "racist remarks."

I don't consider them racist at all. I think that one -- "Peace be on your beard" -- stands out as a bit of a barb (no pun intended), but I am confident that Joe meant it in good fun, not as a "racist remark."

I decided to reply to you both to give my opinion and the "top" this thread, in case Joe overlooked it. (He may have seen it and decided not to reply to you. I don't know.)

God bless you.
John
PS: You aren't a Moslem, are you?

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.