www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rove had Sen. Hilary Clinton's office exorcised?

Dear Alice:

I sympathize with many of your frustrations. It is very unfortunate that there is so much hatefulness in our nation politically speaking. However, there are a few things I would ask that you consider, because I feel like some of your remarks are a little unbalanced with respect to those who do not support President Bush. There are a great many people (including many Christians) who would disagree with you that President Bush is "a good man and a devoted Christian." And many of us have been vocal in our criticism because we feel that silence is complicity and we do not wish to be complicit in choices he has made that we believe to be morally wrong choices. Many of us believe that to stand behind our leaders even during times of crisis is not the right thing to do if we believe that they are making decisions that are morally incorrect. Now I understand that you have not made the same judgments as many others have with respect to the character of President Bush. I respect that--and I also allow for the possibility that some or perhaps even all of my judgments are incorrect. But I believe that I have an obligation to speak out against the decisions of a President whom I believe to be acting immorally, just as I believe that it was the right thing to do when people criticized President Clinton for his sexual immorality and his difficulties with speaking truthfully. But I ask you (in Christian charity) not to judge those of us who speak out against President Bush when his conduct offends our sense of morality. We believe to do otherwise is wrong. I would also add that certain members of President Bush's administration (particularly Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld) are among the most guilty of any in this country in terms of fostering the hatefulness that exists in the political arena and President Bush would probably do a great deal to blunt criticisms against him and his administration if he would rein them in and insist that they temper their speech-particularly demanding that they stop spewing their venom towards anyone who questions their policies and conduct and to stop accusing those who do not support the war in Iraq of being unpatriotic.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Alice,


there is as much hatred among the supporters of President Bush especially among so-called Christians towards those who disagree with them as those who criticize the President. Not to see that is just too one-sided.

Brian,

Setting aside your generalities, you asserted that Karl Rove is an agnostic. I have no idea how that is to be demonstrated but such assertions need backup. I don't see how one measures "hatred" either but you might wish to demonstrate the proof for that assertion besides. I'm a bit surprised that you keep making such general accusations. It would be better if you demonstrate what you assert or don't assert things you can't demonstrate. Don't you think that is a good thing?

CDL

Yes indeed, Dan

You might have found the link that I provided many posts earlier if you were not intent on accusing me of something. It is an interview on NPR on the Fresh Air show with Terry Gross.

Listen to the entire interview:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5775226

CDL:
How about Alice's assertions of hatred? Are her claims about hatred in the political sphere wrongly made since we can't "measure hatred" or is it only the minority of us on this forum who are not political conservatives who are to be chastised for pointing out the hatred that is often directed towards us by those on the political right? I think you should give Brian a break here-I think Alice is correct in pointing out that there is a great deal of hatred being meted out in the political sphere, but I think Brian is simply pointing out that it goes both ways. I also think that hate is quite easy for any of us to recognize.
Sincerely,
Ryan

The only reason I stay on this Forum especially on political topics is that the only representation here seems to be on the Right wing of especially American politics. I think for balance that alternative. voices need to be heard. I believe this to be a good thing. I don't see the same outrage about Zenovia's previous insinuations and generalizations. I wish there was the same outrage on the part of Christians at that, frankly

Zenovia:
Since you asked for it, here it is. President Bush has consistently demonstrated a lack of ability to admit ever to having made a mistake-except when failure to do so would amount to political suicide, namely, the way in which his administration handled the situation on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, he has mislead the country about the reasons for invading Iraq-and he has changed his tune numerous times as to exactly what the reason is. His arrogance is as big as his home state of Texas (I really don't see how that is not obvious to everyone and arrogance is certainly sinful), and apparently there is no low to which he will not stoop to defame his opponents-just ask Senator McCain and former Senator Max Cleland-he/his administration have attacked both of them and called into question their loyalty, even though both men served in wartime and Senator McCain suffered for years as a POW and Senator Cleland lost three limbs.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Brian,

I'm proud of you and you should be proud of yourself. You are guided by an overriding principle and you have followed it through. That seems quite like the description of Karl Rove and seems quite like the description of any intelligent driven person.

To the point at hand. I read the linked article. I may have missed it but could you copy and paste for this dim witted participant the quite and the substantiation for the claim that he is agnostic.

Ryan,

I don't believe hatred is what motivates most of American politics. Sometimes it has in our history but most of the time people have little time or inclination for hatred as a primary motivating factor. Secularism, calculations in order to get power, dishonesty, those are prominent motivators for many in politics and even in personal interactions. The words may seem hateful to those who disagree with them but I doubt that hatred has much to do with much political discourse. Power, dishonesty, secularism are all sadly part of our political landscape.

I believe in a Catholic monarchy. At least that would more accuratel reflect the "Kingdom" of God. But, we don't have that and aren't likely to get it. So we make the best of what we have.

A reading of Romans 13 might be helpful for our discussion.

CDL

Ryan,

What might be helpful is if we all referred to this before going on http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic.html

Reading Romans 13 might also be helpful.

CDL

Actually I've found Zenovia's insinuations about churches tax exempt status to be true, at least in the Chicago area. Here there definitely is a double standard in favor of those who reject the teachings of Apostolic Christianity. In the 90's I went to a mass, at the very impressive church of St Michael the Archangel at 83rd-South Shore, and was horrified to see stacks of campaign literature for pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, senatorial candidate Carol Moseley-Braun, IN the church's vestibule ! where people bless themselves with holy water. I also know that Father Michael Pfleger, a priest with a long history of involvement in left wing causes, has endorsed pro-abortion, pro-homosexual senatorial candidate Barack Obama from the pulpit of St Sabina's church. At the same time, I can honestly say, I have never seen campaign literature for Republican, or any other conservative candidates, stored or being handed out inside a Catholic church, nor do I know of a Republican candidate being endorsed from the pulpit.

That's certainly been my experience.

CDL

CDL:
Believe it or not, I agree with much of what you're saying. While there certainly is a great deal of hatred being circulated, I agree with you that it is not the primary force in politics. I'm more inclined to believe that self aggrandizement is the biggest motivator for most politicians-throughout the political spectrum. As for your Catholic monarchy, I probably could accept that as well. Democracy, while certainly vastly preferable to certain other systems out there, has a very mixed record, at best. I'm basically a New Deal, Great Society liberal-politically speaking. However, I believe that a Catholic monarchy would do no worse than a democracy-and perhaps better-in achieveing the sort of social welfare agenda I believe is the rightful domain of government. As for Romans 13, we've been down that road before, and I must simply say that I'll agree to disagree with you about that, because you and I have very different perspectives about how that passage is rightly to be applied with respect to dissent in our country, which affords me the right to dissent and does not require me to be supportive of the decisions of any president or other government official which I find to be morally objectionable.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan,

I find all governments morally objectionable and even the actions of Catholic monarchs would probably be in some degree morally objectionable. We can even say so. What we can't do and still avoid be morally objectionable ourselves is to accuse someone falsely because we think we know their motivations. We can't sling our arrows of discontent by calling our leaders disrespectful names.

What would you do against a group determined to destroy you and much of civilation as we know it if you had the power to do something about it?

That's the question we ought to be asking ourselves.

CDL

Dear Ryan you said:

I say:

I recall that at the time of Katrina the liberal media would ask the 'refugees' who was to blame, and they all responded the Democratic Mayor and Governor, to the chagrin of the reporters.

If it became a federal issue, it did so because the Democrats kept harping about it being Pres. Bush's fault. I happen to have a long memory. Let's not forget that there is such a thing as 'State's Rights', and that means that State's have certain obligations. The Federal government had to step in when the State was not able to cope with the problem. If it later became Pres. Bush's fault, it did so because some people believe that if you say something often enough, people will believe it.

There are very serious issues here, and it has more to do with the graft and dishonesty within New Orleans, than with the amount of money being given out by the Federal government.

Also, let's not discard the fact that had President Bush not immediately cut taxes at a time when our country was in a recession and then suffered the economic catastrophy of 911, we might have ended up in a depression. Instead the economy has been rising continuously even considering the immense natural disasters we have been encountering. So let's give credit where credit is due.

You said:
I say:

The President can only react according to the information he is being given. The head of the CIA, George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, gave the President the information as he knew it. But we really can't blame George Tenet. The CIA did not have the funds that were necessary to know what was going on. The funds to the CIA should have been increased at the time of the first attack. They say it takes at least ten years to train agents to infiltrate organizations such as Al Queda.

You said:

I say:

I see no arrogance whatsoever. I see a highly compassionate man that goes with his wife and meets not only with every wounded soldier in the hospital, but with the parents of those that have died. He cries easily, now surely that is not arrogance.

You know Presidents have an immense burden. They are in charge of the lives of all in this country. They have to balance the lives of those that will die today, with the lives that might die tomorrow if no action is taken.

You said:

I say:

He has a right, to question another's person loyalty. You know, everyone perceives things through a different perspective. I see what is going on today as being similar to the events before WW II. Others think of it as another Vietnam. But then again, even considering Vietnam, no one knows what events might have unfurled had we not gone into it. For all we know, the whole Far East might have become communist. If we consider how many people died in the Soviet Union under communism, and China, etc., then would we have been at fault for entering a war that might have prevented the deaths of hundred of thousands, if not millions?

We can only know what events have occurred when we didn't take action. We can never know what might have come about when those actions were taken and hindered those events from occuring.

You know, I think it's time we started having a bill that would state that politicians and their parties must only state issues, and stop the labelling, lies, etc.

You know years ago, the Democrats had a bill on Social Security that was very similar to the bill the Republicans had. So what did they do. They began a TV campaign stating that the Republicans wanted to stop Social Security. Of course the senior citizens fell for it, never realizing that the Republicans had a very similar bill. After that comments were always made as to the 'scare' tactics of the Democrats, going after the elderly.

Well, the President made a speech in which he said that if we don't solve the problems in the Middle East, our children will end up suffering. Now that's not a scare tactic but a real issue. One very similar to the one that existed before WW II, when Prime Minister Chamberlain appeased Hitler a few days before he attacked Poland. So today what do we have. The Democrats saying that the President is using 'scare' tactics.

Can't you tell the difference?

Zenovia

Dear Brian,

As far as outrage, I think that when a Moderator edits and deletes, it pretty much means the same thing.

Regards,
Alice