« Didn't They Used To Have Bowl Games On New Year's Day? | Main | "That burns" (UPDATED) »

What will the New Year bring?

Allow me to briefly pause to say Happy 2011 to all our readers.  May this new year be better than the last and might we all this coming year know, and heed, that which God deems fulfilling and productive.

2010 was a rough 12 months for many and we don't need to list the litany of reasons why it was so.  Many are intimately familiar with those reasons.

The new year has begun much like the old sadly:

President Hosni Mubarak urged Egypt's Christians and Muslims to unite and confront "terrorism" after a New Year's day car bomb killed 21 people at a Coptic church in Alexandria, in the latest blow to the Middle East's largest Christian community.

There was no immediate claim, but Al-Qaeda has threatened Christians everywhere, and called for punishment of Egypt's Copts, over claims that two priests' wives they say had converted to Islam were being held by the church against their will.

The health ministry's Abderrahman Shahine said 21 people were killed and 43 wounded.

The car, which was parked outside the Al-Qiddissine (The Saints) church in the Sidi Bechr district of the Mediterranean port city, exploded at around half past midnight (2230 GMT Friday) as worshippers were leaving after a service.

A witness told private television channel On-TV he had seen a green Skoda pull up outside the church shortly after midnight. Two men got out and the explosion occurred almost immediately afterwards.

...

The attack was claimed by Al-Qaeda affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq, which said its purpose was to force the release of the two women in Egypt.

"All Christian centres, organisations and institutions, leaders and followers, are legitimate targets for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) wherever they can reach them," the group said.

"Let these idolaters, and at their forefront, the hallucinating tyrant of the Vatican, know that the killing sword will not be lifted from the necks of their followers until they declare their innocence from what the dog of the Egyptian Church is doing," the ISI said.

It also demanded that the Christians "show to the mujahedeen their seriousness to pressure this belligerent church to release the captive women from the prisons of their monasteries."

The BBC has posted relevant pictures to include some of Christians in the streets protesting the bombing and riot police being deployed to separate them from a nearby mosque where apparently some Christians took to throwing stones, clearly not satisfied with merely turning the other cheek.  Which brings us to a relevant question and the real reason for this post.

How should Christians react to radical Islam?  Or as one leftist preacher has snidely put it to me, 'Since Brother Rick is so afraid of Muslims, my question is: "Rick what is your answer to the Muslim 'problem'?"'

I've thought hard about that for some time and believe the answer has multiple layers.

First, I think the West needs to quit playing politically correct games and seeing radical Islam as the threat that it is... this would include more vigorously confronting the so called moderate elements within this allegedly great relligion to do their own confronting with their radical brethren.  My problem however with this is that I'm of the belief that these moderates are simply cultural Muslims who aren't quite as... committed and passionate... to their beliefs as the jihadists... which makes this confrontation less likely to take place... but which leads to my next thought which can't really be expressed delicately.

Christians need to better fulfill the great commission.  All Christians.  To include those who haven't historically taken up this mission with any zeal and yes, here I include the denomination to which I find myself moving toward.  Of course, this mission too is dependent upon the committed and the passionate within the faith and frankly, there are too many within Christianity who are as marginal in their faith as those earlier referenced moderate Muslims and I'll quickly acknowledge that too often, I count myself amongst them.

I am, as many readers know, quick to react angrily to those stories recounting yet another Islamist attack.  I'm quick to want to see these murderous thugs be brought to justice.  I'm so quick to want to pick up the sword and smite the offender.  And I'm as quick, and perhaps with sound reason, to look to Just War theology as the basis for these reactions.  It's a constant inward struggle that comes largely from my belief in the veracity of the following scripture:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

The bottom line is simple to state but far more complex to practice and effectively put in place.  Evil must be confronted.  To confront evil, it must first be identified and branded as such.  And as a Christian, I must not confront evil with evil.  And there is where the rubber meets the road, there is where the struggle becomes real, there is where, if I can add a bottom line to the bottom line, I need help.

And so I commit this year to be constantly seeking that help.  Sadly, because I know myself, I'll need help in adhering to that commitment but I know from whence that help originates. 

May this post be a constant reminder to me, and perhaps you, to whom it is I should go.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40838.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What will the New Year bring?:

» Brutally Honest linked with What will the New Year bring?

Comments (49)

I have no answer to the 'pr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I have no answer to the 'problem' other than the observation that continued killings like these are going to cause more and more of the PC crowd to wonder about the actual beliefs of the "moderate" Muslims. Actions speak louder than words.

Even Barry has finally learned that.

While you are correct that ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

While you are correct that the mainline denominations have largely walked away from the Great Commission, more and more effective evangelism is not the answer to islam.

The problem with islam is its violence and militancy, which have existed from the start. The beliefs of muslims that apostates should be murdered and that people evangelizing other faiths should be murdered and that infidels should be subjugated, sold into slavery or forced to pay punitive taxes and live as second class citizens are a profound barrier to peace.

The only way to deal with this situation is to confront it with sufficient force as to deter further terrorism. What they understand is force. It's a brutal religion that understands violence alone. If islam understands that its violent behavior will be confronted with reciprocal violence then this will end.

Only when we direct our counter terror efforts at removing the top level leaders, the imams, the sheiks, the ayatollahs, will we succeed in stemming this threat. We cannot stop this until we address the issue with Saudi aggression. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq will be seen as cowardice and will be incentives to continue to attack Christians and the west. The supine approach of obama and his lefty friends will only make matters worse.

10.5% unemployment... (Below threshold)
retired military:

10.5% unemployment

$5.50 gas

Cap and trade via regulation and executive fiat.

Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and Brayer step down so that Obama can appoint 2 more lifetime socialist to the supreme court which will lock in 4 lefties for another 20-30 years.

Obama will continue to hurt American business.

The republican House will make some small steps in the right direction.

Do you even know, Rick, wha... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Do you even know, Rick, what the "Just War" theory is?

1. The damage by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

2. All other means of putting and end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

3. The "just" war must have serious prospects of success.

4. The use of arms must NOT produce evils and disorders more grave than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction must be weighed very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The above is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The emphasis on "NOT" is mine.

So how does the concept of Just War fit into your justification for the constant rabble-rousing you do here? How does your church's catechism justify, say, the American involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they "Just Wars?" The Pope doesn't think so.

Does the Afghanistan conflict really have "serious prospects of success?" Really? You think so? If so, many would disagree.

Did the invasion and occupation of Iraq not result in "evils and disorders" very grave indeed?

Were there no other means of putting an end to the danger posed by Saddam that might have proved practical and effective?

Finally, from what I've read, the doctrine of Just War says NOTHING about a military response to terrorism. This is not to say that I personally think a military response is never justified - sometimes, in my opinion, it is. But the concept of Just War - that you use to rationalize your Muslim-bashing - is silent on the matter, at least to my knowledge.

I think the best thing that... (Below threshold)

I think the best thing that Christians can do is to continually expose the evil and injustice that permeates not only radical Islam, but much of Islamic culture in general.

Christ was an expert at exposing evil and injustice through confrontation, ridicule, mockery, scorn, and self-sacrifice. And the Scriptures never speak of Christ backing off just because the perpetrators might have had darker skin, or may have belonged to a group of people that at one time had been victims of other people's aggression.

I have no problem whatsoever telling Islamic apologists that, despite their silver-tongued rhetoric and good intentions, real Islam, as practiced world-wide by millions upon millions of real, faithful Muslims (though not by EVERY Muslim - let's make that distinction clear), is a textbook example of violence, retribution, male chauvinism, misogyny, bigotry, racism, and homophobia.

American Christians, especially liberal or "social justice" Christians, would consider the casual dismissal of evil or injustice committed by our own authorities or religious leaders to be sinful, especially if such a dismissal occurred because doing the right thing would be "inconvenient" or "offensive." It's time we started applying that standard universally.

Rick, I particularly apprec... (Below threshold)

Rick, I particularly appreciate your closing paragraphs. Thank you. Alongside you, I declare that I also need help.

Jim, a Western power trying... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Jim, a Western power trying to "remove" the imams, sheikhs, and ayatollahs would be playing into the hands of bin Laden. And it would never work, and couldn't be done. Can't you people see that a permanent war between Christianity and Islam is EXACTLY what the Islamist fanatics want?

"The Pope doesn't think ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"The Pope doesn't think so."
I suspect if people had flown airplanes into the Vatican he would think otherwise.

Does the Afghanistan conflict really have "serious prospects of success?"
It did before Barry came into office. It will be going on after he's out. When we have a competent President I will let you know.

Did the invasion and occupation of Iraq not result in "evils and disorders" very grave indeed?

Were there no other means of putting an end to the danger posed by Saddam that might have proved practical and effective?

By some estimates that numbers of Iraqi dead from the war may actually be less than what Saddam Hussein would have inflicted upon his own people. The US has not used chemical weapons on the public nor has it conducted a campaign of torture and rape against people who speak out against the new government.

As for a different way to remove him, what would you have suggested? Assassination? Obviously sanctions did nothing but help him consolidate his position.

Whether a war is a just war is something that is decided not by third parties but by those involved. Such decisions are necessarily subjective and therefore third parties might easily interpret thing differently.

Oh, and as for your point #1. Please explain how 3000 dead is not lasting and certain damage. Unless you propose raising them from the dead. And there is still a multi billion dollar hole in the center of NY ten years later. You easily dismiss the actions of terrorists as nothing. If you can do that it should be understandable how the Pope, who is even more removed from the situation can see things differently than those who are much closer.

Can't you people see tha... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Can't you people see that a permanent war between Christianity and Islam is EXACTLY what the Islamist fanatics want?

I do see that. I just also believe that the answer is not to let them conduct a one sided war against us. They have already declared war and are prosecuting that war as best they can. SO the choice is either to wait until they destroy our society through acts of terrorism and alternately pushing for legal exceptions that promote their issues over everyone else (sharia law, segregation of the sexs, laws allowing them to conceal women's identities and prevent the use of photo id's etc).

This is not a war of our choosing. We are in it whether we like it or not. The choice is whether to fight and win or to roll over and watch our way of life exterminated.

"Obviously sanctions did no... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"Obviously sanctions did nothing except help him consolidate his position." Well, there's some disagreement about that, Jim. It's not "obvious" except to the already-convinced.

I've not seen "some estimates" of the number of dead that you have. Last I heard it was about 100,000, and about 4 million uprooted and displaced. And it was apparently OK for Saddam to murder and oppress his own people when we were using him as a counterweight to Iran. When that was considered no longer necessary, all of a sudden his conduct was morally outrageous! So on what date did war against Saddam's regime become "just?"

And if war against tyranny is ALWAYS just, Just War proponents should be advocating for war against any number of regimes at least as brutal as Saddam's was. Where was the hue and cry against Mobutu in Zaire back in the day? Is there any movement to invade and occupy Sudan, China, or North Korea?

You are also, in comment # 9, conflating the actions of terrorists with the actions of those civil activists who do things like sue for the right of women to be hooded, segregation of sexes, the ability to use Sharia law in their own communities, etc. The latter can be dealt with in the courts and legislatures of the West - the former, I agree, must be confronted harshly, but wisely, and not in the spirit of vengeance but in our own enlightened self-interest.

"How should Christians reac... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"How should Christians react to radical Islam?"

Kill the bastards on sight, its the only effective way to eradicate virulent hatred of humanity.

"Can't you people see that a permanent war between Christianity and Islam is EXACTLY what the Islamist fanatics want?" 7. Posted by Bruce Henry

Maybe you've missed it but the Islamic fanatics have been at war with anyone not one of them prior to the Crusades. History is replete with their atrocities. You are so clueless its painful, just stop, soonest.

"The choice is whether to f... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"The choice is whether to fight and win or to roll over and watch our way of life exterminated."

Oh, I disagree, Jim, and I believe a historical parallel can be drawn with the struggle against world communism. There we had an implacable opponent (or two) who dominated much of the world's landmass, and who had as their declared intention the destruction of the western, capitalist way of life. We took a Third Course, did we not, between "fighting and winning" and "rolling over?"

We fought where and when necessary (and sometimes where and when it wasn't, like Vietnam) and accomodated where and when that was appropriate. And, in 2011, which way of life has been "exterminated" - the one espoused by Stalin and Mao, or ours?

There is no need for such an apocalyptic outlook, Jim. The young people of the Islamic world will sooner or later come around, just as the young people of the communist world did. We can contain Islamism just as we contained communism, until it collapses by its own weight, and by the obvious contrast in material prosperity that its leaders cannot conceal from their people.

Gmac, history is replete wi... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Gmac, history is replete with atrocities by all actors, of whatever religious persuasion. Shall we list all the atrocities committed by the West in the conquest of the Americas, or in the Scramble for Africa, or in the subjugation of the Indian subcontinent, or in the struggle of the French to hold on to Algeria and Vietnam?

Your bloodthirstiness is counterproductive and, I hate to say it, fucking stupid. If any Western government took action based on your view, there really would be an apocalypse.

"The young people of the Is... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"The young people of the Islamic world will sooner or later come around, just as the young people of the communist world did."

Really?

I'm glad you have such confidence. However, I would suggest that maybe this time it would be nice if we could avoid the hundreds of millions of dead that the communists left behind. I know that the left is ok with genocide and that they were certainly ok with mass starvation by the communists.

How many millions are you willing for the next political/religious scourge to kill just to avoid taking any personal responsibility for opposing it in even the most minor of ways?

"You are also, in comment #... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"You are also, in comment # 9, conflating the actions of terrorists with the actions of those civil activists who do things like sue for the right of women to be hooded, segregation of sexes, the ability to use Sharia law in their own communities, etc. "

Consider it conflating the two if you like. I believe that they are parts of the same whole. It is a concerted efforts by extremists to force their religion on he rest of us. Some chose bullets and bombs, other chose lawsuits and legal obstructionism. Just because some zealots lack the blood lust of the others does not meant that they are not working toward the same goal or that they do not share a common vision.

And how could we have preve... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And how could we have prevented the hundreds of millions of dead that the communists left behind, Jim. Through a "Just War," perhaps?

Maybe the US, with an army of less than a hundred thousand, should have invaded the Ukraine to prevent the Stalinist mass starvations of the 1930s? Or perhaps we should have nuked China over the Korean conflict? Would that have prevented the hundreds of millions dead, or would it just be a different hundred million individuals who died? We paid a huge cost in lives, money, and innocence to "save" Indochina from communism - did it work? Would Vietnam be our trading partner today if the war hadn't been fought? I suggest it would be - only sooner.

Don't be unrealistic, Jim. It's not the West's prerogative to enforce our standards of morality all over the world, any more than it is the right of Muslim fanatics to enforce theirs. It IS our right to defend ourselves and our culture, but neither Gmac's "kill-'em-on-sight" philosophy nor your advocacy of the "removal" of imams and ayatollahs are proper long-term solutions. Both are, if I may say so, ignorant, naive, xenophobic nonsense.

BTW, I realize the parallels with fanatic Islamism to communism are not exact and the analogy's not perfect.

I am not proposing to offer... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I am not proposing to offer a solution to confronting the communists 50-90 years ago.

I am saying that currently the islamic threat has already chosen to engage us. They have chosen the timing of the conflict as well as its nature.

As for enforcing our morality on the rest of the world are you saying that you are OK with slavery going on anywhere? Are you saying that you are OK with Christians in Darfur being sold into slavery? It certainly sounds like it.

My point is that they have taken the fight to us. Since the 7th century the islamic world has been at war with the rest of us. That's not my interpretation, its theirs. Several times they have invaded the west with the express purpose of subjugating it. This is just the most recent manifestation of that.

I'm just in favor of not being the generation that allows them to succeed. You seem to be content o deal with them like communism: Just let them take over a large segment of Europe and Asia for a few generations. As long as hey aren't killing people I care about then it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't seem to matter to you that they will destroy the lives of millions of people if given the chance. Merely dismissing hat possibility doesn't make the threat go away. Only active opposition to them will do that.

Not being "OK" with Christi... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Not being "OK" with Christians being sold into slavery doesn't mean that I want my government to invade and occupy Sudan. I'm not "OK" with it, and it only "certainly sounds like it" to those trying to score cheap rhetorical points that would earn you an F in Logic 101 at your local community college.

In comment # 2, you advocate "removal" of top level leaders, imams, sheikhs, and ayatollahs. How would you remove them, Jim? Through assassination? Military raids? The Israelis have been doing just that for 60 years. Are they any less besieged, or more secure, for their efforts?

And that has been my point. I don't dispute that radical Islamist terrorists have "declared war" on us. So what? we can respond in whatever way we choose. We are far more powerful than a few thousand, or even many thousands, of terrorist fanatics. We don't need to elevate them to a higher status than they deserve, or legitimize them in any way.

When the most powerful nation on Earth declares "war" on Al Qaeda, we elevate this band of medieval bandits into a legitimate opponent in the eyes of many man-in-the-street Muslims. In that way, George Bush and his supporters have played into the hands of terrorists and unwittingly advanced their agenda. You've been duped by bin Laden into a religious conflict that will never end.

The current wave of Islamic terrorism, in my opinion, is no different than the Palestinian and Leftist terrorism we saw in the 1970s and 80s. Communism has been discredited, so those who want the West OUT of the Middle East switched tactics and started pushing religion instead of Marxist ideology. Islam, for them, is nothing more than a tactical tool.

I am no theologian, but I s... (Below threshold)

I am no theologian, but I seem to recall that the Christian scriptures tolerate as much violence in self defense as is required. After the thugs have been dealt with, and the survivors given a fair trial and hanged, we can piously forgive them.

Unfortunately 2011 is easy ... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

Unfortunately 2011 is easy to project:

Muslims: They'll be killing lots of people.
U.S. unemployment: Higher.
U.S. housing market: Worse.
U.S. cities and counties: Insolvent; perhaps a wave of defaults.
U.S. deficit and debt scenarios: Worse.
Global financial markets: More volatile.
Iran: More defiant.
North Korea: More desperate.
Leftists: More idiotic and more deranged, believe it or not.
The liberal media: Dumber, actually, if you can believe it.
Conservative talk radio: More detached and more cocooned.
Left-wing academia: A lot dumber, actually.
Palin: Come October or November: 24/7, in neon.
Obama: More of an empty suit, if you can fathom that. But still enormously dangerous to the long-term welfare of the country.

The summary by Michael in... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

The summary by Michael in 5 hits on the subject with brevity and focus right in it's first sentence. Islam, from top to bottom, almost without variance, has made itself an implacable enemy of western life and thought. I add, however, this modification to Michael's stated course. Islam is far, far too large to take on directly as it attacks it's intellectually dishonest foe and cannot be challenged without disengaging first it's vanguard in the West...political correctness. It is this fact that enables inroads into our western societies and in our own lands. However evil you judge Islam to be, however great your rage, you cannot turn it back to it's own benighted realms by attacking it head on. You must first kill the intellectual lie of PC in order to scotch the extreme dangers Islam. The glass jaw of Islam resides in our universities and schools giving it's special instruction to our children. It resides also in media professionals who daily bring us reports of muslim atrocities world wide yet deny these warning signs as a threat. Political correctness is a social and political cancer that must be excised totally, then burned. We must then be very careful of where we put it's ashes.
Well..if you hold this invading juggernaut in contempt, if you fear it's success, then the first step in destroying it's imported evil is to go after your intellectual superiors where they spend their lives reading and educating out the quality of common sense that most youngsters inately possess. Ridicule and lampooning are excellent tools to use in full view of the young. Don't know how...watch Glenn Beck for instruction and demonstration! Likewise with the phonies of the liberal media. They can both be turned just as the leaders of global warming are now being made irrelevant.

All hail the lords of Ac... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

All hail the lords of Academe and the left footed media I offer my heartfelt judgement of your performances in 2010 as follows...Hippoleum paysbasium cocalorum magnus! A twelve year old English schoolboy would guess this a line from Horace's Odes, but I believe it, purely judgementally to mean; your levels of honesty and integrity are as hard to digest as...'the male member of the Belgian dray horse. (An enormous brute no matter your focus).

Bruce HenryQuick q... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce Henry

Quick question.

What religion other than Islam are the terrorists we are fighting in Afghanistan?

So much for your "muslim bashing" comment.

As to your "just war" comments. The left has been saying that Afghanistan was "the just war", "the legal war", "the right war" etc etc since about 9/11/2001. So instead of bashing Rick about "just war " comments why dont you go and bash the left since they were the ones that did nothing but condemn Bush for not concentrating more on Afghanistan until umm about the time that Bush left office and then they stopped condeming the sitting president for how the war was going, even though the sitting President has been in office for 2 years now.


BTW Bruce Henry"So... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Bruce Henry

"So how does the concept of Just War fit into your justification for the constant rabble-rousing you do here? How does your church's catechism justify, say, the American involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they "Just Wars?" The Pope doesn't think so.

"

Since you are so interested in how the Pope and the Catholic Church feel about the war I am sure that you are going to go right out and start harping against all the proabortion groups as well. I thought not.

When the lefties start paying attention to what the Pope and the Church say on abortion then you can play the "The Pope is against the war card". Until then keep it in your hand because it makes you look VERY Foolish.


Bruce Henry"Commun... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce Henry

"Communism has been discredited,"

Hey now if you we can get socialism discredited then maybe we can kick Obama out of his job and get an adult in there (Biden will have to pass).

Hey RM:I'm not res... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Hey RM:

I'm not responsible for what "the left" says or does, any more than you are responsible for what "the right" says or does, am I?

Speaking strictly for myself, I was definitely glad that President Bush used the military to punish the Taliban and oust the regime that had refused to hand over the terrorist(s) responsible for 9/11. But a 9 1/2 year war to install a democracy in a place and for a people who weren't interested in democracy? I didn't sign up for that.

Oh, and not to question your intellect, your reading comprehension, or your sobriety, RM, but the fact that I mention the Pope doesn't consider Iraq or Afghanistan "just wars" doesn't mean I give a damn what the Pope thinks. I don't - but I'm reasonably certain that Rick DOES. My point was that Rick tosses around terms like "Just War" when he has no clue what he's talking about. Hell, I knew more about the theory of Just War and I left the Church as a teenager.

BruceYou try to us... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

You try to use the Pope's views on the war because of Ricks beliefs. The left is good for things like that. They could give a crap less about anything else he says, especially abortion, unless it fits their views.

You are doing the same thing. So in ref to your first statement about you not being responsible for what the left says... in this case if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it aint no turkey.

I too am a practising Catholic. and I have read the Pope's views on the war. At the same time I understand the political aspects of his position as well. What is the Pope supposed to do? Stand up and say .. HEy this war thing is great, let's keep it up. Sorry the crusades were back around 800 or so years ago. And if I remember correctly they involved Islam as well. You are so concerned about the terrorist recruiting tools how does the mantra which goes like "this is just another crusade by the Christian infidels" sound.

So in short. Dont go around using the Pope's words against the war (which is exactly what you did whether you like or believe in the Pope or not) and not expect someone to call you on it ref the left's views on abortion. Sorry Bruce. The left likes to have their cake and eat it too as well as saying Here are the ground rules. We can do this but you cant.


It's amazing how libtards r... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

It's amazing how libtards reach to justify their love of terrorists & dictators by bringing up centuries old events in order to slam Christians.

I guess they have nothing recent to compare to in order to rationalize their demented thoughts on the subject, but then again I would not expect much more from them.

I'm curious about Bruce's a... (Below threshold)
Rick Author Profile Page:

I'm curious about Bruce's ability to know with certainty that I haven't a clue as to Just War doctrine based solely on what I've written here.

So you are a practicing Cat... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So you are a practicing Catholic who follows the Pope's admonitions and the Church's teachings, huh?

I guess you consider a Catholic who ignores Church teachings to be a "bad" Catholic, huh? Like one who divorces and remarries, gets an abortion, or uses contraception other than the Rhythm Method?

But it's OK to ignore Church teachings if it satisfies your lust for Muslim blood, huh?

This post, you du...this post is ABOUT Rick's beliefs, this post in which he tosses around terms like "Just War." Rick wouldn't know a Just War if it bit him in the ass. He definitely doesn't know which wars are considered "just" by the leader of the denomination "toward which he finds himself moving" (to straighten out his screwed-up syntax).

And apparently you, yourself, could "give a crap less" about what the Pope says, unless it's about abortion. He speaks out against the war? "Well, what is he supposed to say? We, as Catholics, don't have to listen to him on the subject of war!" What I want to know is, what OTHER subjects is the Pope incompetent to have an opinion on, according to you, RM?

Re # 29:You're rig... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 29:

You're right, Rick. Now that you've had all day to look it up, why don't you enlighten us as to your interpretation of the Just War part of your catechism?

Re # 28:The most r... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 28:

The most recent anti-Muslim outrage I can think of is some anonymous idiot in Texas who claimed to have ripped pages from the Koran, burnt them, and then pissed on the ashes. What a maroon, right? And cowardly, too, to do it anonymously and then post it on the comment section of a blog later!

I forget what he called himself.

Bruce... try to stick with ... (Below threshold)
Rick Author Profile Page:

Bruce... try to stick with the substance of my question... how, based on what I've written here, can you be certain that I am clueless on the doctrine of Just War?

I'm attempting to understand your deductive reasoning...

So please, stick to the question, and answer it.

Yes, you got me there, Rick... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Yes, you got me there, Rick. You are sooo clever! I fell right into your little trap!

You're right - based solely on what you've written here, I can't be sure you're clueless about Just War. But if I had to judge based solely on what you've written here, and what I know about you from what you've written in the past, I'd wager that you are.

But, please, prove me wrong. It's only a comment section on a blog - I've been proven wrong before. Tell us, Rick, what makes you think you know a Just War better than Benedict XVI? Or John Paul II?

Thanks Bruce... you've prov... (Below threshold)
Rick Author Profile Page:

Thanks Bruce... you've proven that you're completely full of shit on the first question... let's now prove that you're an absolute moron...

Tell us Bruce... exactly what critical thinking processes you've engaged in that would make you conclude that I know Just War better than this Pope or the previous one... walk us through it Bruce... let's help us once again understand your deductive reasoning skills...

Bruce bruce bruceI... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce bruce bruce

I consider people practising catholics and nonpraticising catholics.

Just because the Pope states that he believes the war is wrong that doesnt make it church doctrine. He is speaking as head of the Catholic church yet but doctrine is something entirely different.

What about the Catholic priests who serve in the military and get deployed to the war. Are you saying they are throwing church doctrine out the window and not listening to the Pope as well?

As for people who get abortions the church has always stated hate the sin and love the sinner. Same goes for gays as well.

If you were as up to speed on the Catholic teachings on things like divorce as we you are on the Church being against the war you would know that the Catholic church does allow divorce in some cases. In addition, people who are divorced can be remarried in the church if church laws are followed.

Again the Pope's statements concerning the war is not considered "church teachings".

As the usual lefty who brings up the churchs teachings on the war and try to use it as a stick to beat Catholics over the head with you are either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of which you speak.

BTW Bruce if you look here

http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm

"The Catholic Church teaches that governments bear the responsibility for determining whether a war they wish to fight is just according to the Church’s Just War Theory"

Notice it says that GOVT bears the responsibility and not individuals. As I recall your lefty friends INCLUDING NANCY PELOSI AND JOHN KERRY were both part of the resolution to use force against Iraq. Now where oh where is your condemanation of them and their Catholic beliefs espeically since both are avid abortion supporters who still take communion. THis is also a point which I happen to disagree with the "official ruling" of the church but I still follow church doctrine in how I handle my own situations. Just because you are a practising Catholic does not make you immune to human emotions.


BTW BruceGoing by ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Bruce

Going by the 4 tenets of the Just war theory. It is my belief (and I am not the Pope nor do I pretend to be) that all 4 tenets have been met.

For you to discount politics in this matter even when talking about the head of a religion is foolish in and of itself.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Just_War_Theory.htm

These are hard conditions to fulfill; the Church teaches that war should always be the last resort.

A Matter of Prudence:
That decision is left to the civil authorities: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” In the United States, for instance, that means Congress, which has the power under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to declare war, and the President, who can ask Congress for a declaration of war.

When the Catechism states that the decision to go to war is ultimately a prudential judgment, that means that the civil authorities bear the responsibility for making sure that a war is just before they fight it.

As I recall Brucie, Congress passed the decision to use force in Iraq.

"The injury or killing of the innocent during war is always forbidden; however, if a bullet goes astray, or an innocent person is killed by a bomb dropped on a military installation, the Church recognizes that these deaths are not intended. With modern weaponry, however, the calculation changes, because governments know that the use of nuclear bombs, for instance, will always kill or injure some who are innocent"

Hmmm Sorta tells you on which the side those suicide bombers who blow up civilians are on now doesnt it. Meanwhile the US goes out of its way to limit civilian casualties.

and on the subject of Canon law Brucie

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309


2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.


BruceYou said abov... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Bruce

You said above that "I'm not responsible for what "the left" says or does" Yet you follow the left’s doctrine to a T.

1. Bash a Christian get a silver star
2. Bash a Catholic get a gold star and go to the head of the class.
3. Hear someone on the right talking about supporting the war then accuse them of having a “bloodlust for Muslims”

Once again. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it aint no turkey

REf 32"The most re... (Below threshold)
retired military:

REf 32

"The most recent anti-Muslim outrage I can think of is some anonymous idiot in Texas who claimed to have ripped pages from the Koran, burnt them, and then pissed on the ashes"

Gee the most recent proradical Muslim outrage I can think of involved suicide bombers killing 29 Christians.

I guess that rules out the possibility of having a civil discussion. Maybe can get Al Gore and John Kerry to go there and bore them to death. Oh wait. Crule and unusual punishment is against the constitution. But Hey, Obama is in the WH so we dont have to worry about that anymore.


Well, RM, now that you've p... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, RM, now that you've proven YOU can defend the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as Just Wars I guess there's no need for Rick to do so.

Of course my point was not that they couldn't be defended - just that Rick couldn't do it.

And he hasn't.

Nor has he explained how Just War theology could help deal with these Islamist suicide bombers that plague the world.

Re # 39, I was poking fun at manly manly Texbob, from a long-past thread where he and Mr Tea both claimed to have desecrated the Koran. I thought it was hilarious that, unlike the nutcase preacher in FL who was threatening to publicly burn Korans (yes, it was that long ago!), they were boasting under internet pseudonyms. I still think it was hilarious.

And I have a new respect for you, RM. After you sobered up, you did a magnificent job defending your position (well, Rick's position) from the mean old liberal. Excellent!

My only quibble is that you insist that I speak for "the left." That's just silly, but, if it makes you feel like you've beaten "the left" whenever you go off on a rant on me, then more power to ya.

Re # 35...Here's m... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 35...

Here's my reasoning...You presumably think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Just Wars....the present and previous popes disagree...therefore, you think you know better...than the present and previous popes...

Please, take a remedial writing class.

Also...you haven't explaine... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Also...you haven't explained...how Just War doctrine could possibly help deal...with the plague of suicide bombers...that you constantly post about...

Catholics have debated just... (Below threshold)
Rick:

Catholics have debated just about every war America has been involved in from the perspective of Just War doctrine... so only the ignorant with ulterior motives would attempt to use disagreement with the Pope as reason to question intellect... and I think anyone with half a brain understands that Bruce here has ulterior motives.

Also, suicide bombers are but yet another weapon in the arsenal of those embracing Islamism and should bear no more or no less an influence on justification for or against just war doctrine...

And Bruce, will you acknowledge your need for remedial thinking lessons? For if you do, I'll be more than glad to then acknowledge, as an offertory of sorts, my need for remedial writing classes.

And I ask the following in all seriousness... what is it about my posts that you seem to take so personally? Why do you feel the need to attack me personally rather than the ideas I'm posting? In what way(s) are you threatened by my thinking? Is it envy of some sort? We should spend time analyzing your need to resort to ad hominems, it might just be cathartic in some way.

Hey BrucieHow is t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hey Brucie

How is that unborn baby blood lust going?

Also Bruce, If the Pope was so dead set against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars why would he not decree that priests cannot minister to soldiers who participate in it? Why not excommunicate anyone who takes part in it? There are steps he can take to ensure that it is as hard to fight it as possible yet he has not done so.


Oh, I'm not questioning you... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, I'm not questioning your intellect, Rick. I think you're plenty smart. Just kinda in over your head sometimes.

And I really don't know why your posts seem to rub me the wrong way. Maybe it's your propensity to couple your "my-walk-with-Christ" posts with piece after piece encouraging the more Neanderthal of your followers to hate ALL Muslims. Maybe it's your Drummond-like tendency to immediately call people stupid who disagree (or find ANY fault with your pieces), then declare that you have won whatever debate was going on. Maybe I just can't forget the naked racism in your post about the Congressional spokesman with the Arab name - I just plain don't like racism.

But really, what ad hominem attacks? Read my comment # 4 - where is it? Answer: it's not, but the question "Do you even know what 'Just War' theory is?" IS there. Now # 10 - do you see an attack on you there? #12? # 13? # 16? # 18? It's not until comment # 26 that I mention that I don't believe you know what you're talking about, and you STILL have not demonstrated that you do. It's only been a day and a half, though.

I hardly think asking you to explain your mention of Just War in a post about suicide bombers constitutes an ad hominem attack, even if it was, after repeated attempts, phrased rather sarcastically.

I put it to your readers: If an author posts something, is it an ad hominem attack to question whether or not the author knows whereof he speaks?

But hey, if it bothers you so much when I comment on your articles I'll stop. I like coming to Wizbang and don't wish to lose my commenting privilege - and I realize it IS a privilege.

Oh, and Rick? Real... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, and Rick?

Really, the only real problem I have with your writing is your ridiculous overuse of ellipses. Seriously, dude, it ain't right.

It's not "style," it's an error.

Oh, I'm not qu... (Below threshold)
Rick:
Oh, I'm not questioning your intellect, Rick. I think you're plenty smart. Just kinda in over your head sometimes.

If kinda in over my head at times is defined by my disagreements with you, then you're wrong... I'm kinda in over my head all the time.

And I really don't know why your posts seem to rub me the wrong way. Maybe it's your propensity to couple your "my-walk-with-Christ" posts with piece after piece encouraging the more Neanderthal of your followers to hate ALL Muslims.

My walk with Christ posts? Seriously? I do in fact reference Christianity but I don't believe I turn them into "my walk with CHrist" posts... which is exactly why I have such a problem with your comments... you make shit up and then criticize the shit you've just made up... it's intellectually lazy, vapid and dishonest.... yet you do it time and again.

Maybe it's your Drummond-like tendency to immediately call people stupid who disagree (or find ANY fault with your pieces), then declare that you have won whatever debate was going on.

To quote my favorite President... there you go again... you'll need to cite a reference (with link) for the beavior cited... you'll not be able to find it... once again, you're making shit up...

Maybe I just can't forget the naked racism in your post about the Congressional spokesman with the Arab name - I just plain don't like racism.

Again, you're making shit up... you're one who consistently sees racism where there isn't any... and this post was a perfect example of it... complete and total fabrication. Your dishonesty here is simply huge...

But really, what ad hominem attacks? Read my comment # 4 - where is it? Answer: it's not, but the question "Do you even know what 'Just War' theory is?" IS there. Now # 10 - do you see an attack on you there? #12? # 13? # 16? # 18? It's not until comment # 26 that I mention that I don't believe you know what you're talking about, and you STILL have not demonstrated that you do. It's only been a day and a half, though.

You completely took this thread off topic with your attacks based on your presumption, which you've since backpedaled on, about my knowledge of Just War theory... and then you attack that presumption... it's yet another classic Bruce Henry-ism... and again, it's dishonest to the core... and it speaks volumes as to your character...

I hardly think asking you to explain your mention of Just War in a post about suicide bombers constitutes an ad hominem attack, even if it was, after repeated attempts, phrased rather sarcastically.

You're doing it again... you now make shit up about what you think I think is an ad hominem attack, and then you attack what you've just made up... it's complete and total bullshit...

I put it to your readers: If an author posts something, is it an ad hominem attack to question whether or not the author knows whereof he speaks?

Wizbang's readers are wise enough not to fall for your false construction. Just cut the crap Bruce... sheez... you're like a damned 2nd grader.

But hey, if it bothers you so much when I comment on your articles I'll stop. I like coming to Wizbang and don't wish to lose my commenting privilege - and I realize it IS a privilege.

I don't have the power... but if I did... I'd give you two warnings... then three strikes, and you're out.

As to your problem with my ellipses... let it go man... it's an indication of pathology... let it go...

Rick dont let Bruc... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Rick

dont let Brucie get to you. It is that blood lust he has for unborn babies. It drives him crazy.

Lets make 2011 the year of ... (Below threshold)

Lets make 2011 the year of peace and love.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy