www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sen. Clinton/Other candidates talk about their faith

Dear Alice:

And I was simply responding to your comments about people not caring about family values and their dislike for President Bush. I felt like your post suggested that those who dislike President Bush don't care about family values. To me, that is an overly broad generalization, and I felt the need to respond to that. Also, I think your post called out for my point that there is more to personal morality than the state of one's marriage. It also seemed to me that you were taking the opportunity to "slam" former President Clinton, while singing the praises of President Bush. I have no problem with your "slam" on President Clinton; his own personal conduct has invited it. I think President Bush's own personal conduct has invited my criticisms. Something I did not state in my previous post, but wish to add now is this: I agree with your claim that President Clinton's sexual immorality in office has had a negative effect on society-I would add that I also strongly believe that President Bush's own immorality, though of a different stripe than that of President Clinton, has also had a negative effect on society. I think that my response to yours was perfectly warranted and reasonable and I think your accusation that I have somehow "instigated" is unfair.

Ryan

How about the systematic bombing of Serbia where schools and hospitals were destroyed.

Clinton and the European Union siding with Islam to kill Orthodox Christians.

Do you agree with these actions Ryan?

Subdeacon Borislav:

I absolutely stand behind everything I said. And yes, I most certainly can criticize both the way in which this war has been carried out and the reasons for going to war. I still believe that the President lied, otherwise, why has the justification he has offered for the war changed so many times? It went from Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction right now (not the ones that the whole world knows he had once had), is buying uranium to make an atomic bomb (what a colossal intelligence fiasco that turned out to be), and is a threat to the world, to Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator whose crimes against the people of Iraq cried out for us to remove him (I ask when are we going to remove all the other evil dictators in the world?). I still believe that President Bush lied. You don't believe that-fine. There is absolutely nothing that you can say that will change my belief, just as I'm sure that nothing I have to say will change yours. As far as your statements about Hitler, that, in my opinion, is absurd. I don't hear anyone (except some Iraqis who are worse off because of our terrible handling of the situation on the ground) saying that Saddam Hussein was not so bad.

Ryan

No, I don't care for how the situation has been handled in the Balkans. But that's just the sort of problem that you run into when you justify a war on the basis of needing to overthrow a dictator (I would think that you'll agree that Milosevic was a pretty bad guy) and don't think through the consequences, and the possible moral defects of your own position. The war in Serbia was one that wasn't justified either. Instead of trapping me, you've helped demonstrate the claims I was making about the war in Iraq.

Ryan

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Watch the video's on the bottom of the page.

Athanasius, I was simply making the point that Clinton's war was not condemned even though it was clear that Milosevic was ABSOLUTELY 100% no THREAT TO US unlike Sadam.

There were mass graves of over 300,000 people uncovered in Iraq. Sadam used WMD's on Kurds. Sadam violated 12 UN resolutions. Sadam payed money to families of suicide bombers. Sadam called for destruction of Israel. All factual info. I really don't understand how you can keep denying facts.

Dear Ryan,

With all due respect, again, I say that you misconstrued my post and my intent. I was discussing sexual/marital morality in response to the statement that Rudolph Guiliani was divorced...and my response had nothing to do with his political party, I promise!

You have said many things which could warrant response by me, and that is why I said that you instigated an argument. I do not wish to discuss them, and I despise politics, so please leave me out of it. Thank you.

After all, you have Subdeacon Borislav to spar with and he is a much worthier and *willing* opponent than I would be! *WINK*

Alice

Subdeacon Borislav:

Where have you seen me deny any of these facts about Hussein? However, I do deny your claim that he was a threat to us. On the other hand, I think a just war case possibly could have been made for war against Hussein on the basis of his diabolical intentions toward the Kurds, as well as his history of genocide against them. Why was this not the cornerstone of President Bush's case for the war? Well, I don't know-I'm not a mind-reader. My strong belief, though, is that it is because President Bush really wasn't concerned about that. If protecting people against diabolical dictators is the real motivating force of US foreign policy, well we all need to prepare to be engaged in war for the rest of our lives, and all the more reason to get our troops out of Iraq ASAP, because there are a number of diabolical regimes across the globe whose actions cry out for us to go and depose them. Oh, I forgot-they don't all rule over nations in possession of some of the world's largest oil reserves!!!

Ryan

Subdeacon Borislav:

Don't you mean it wasn't condemned by all the wicked, mindless liberals? Actually, that war was/is condemned by plenty of people who think like you. Unfortunately, criticism of that war should have been much broader than it actually was, just as questioning of the current war in Iraq should have been much broader than it was in the beginning. I, for one, did not criticize the war in the Balkans at the time it was being fought during the Clinton Administration because I was still a Southern Baptist and had not learned the Church's teachings concerning warfare.

Ryan

Why yes, you took the words right out of mouth

And the Church's teachings on warfare are?

LOL !

This thread has drifted WAY past its original topic. Usually I try to avoid political discussions on the religious forums that I visit -- because I visit them for religion, not politics.

But, I will make one comment here. The ease with which passions become inflamed on topics like this is indicative that care and consideration and dispassion must be employed when evaluating the moral qualities of political candidates. It makes for more boring reading, but perhaps more accurate conclusions .

My two cents worth.

-- John

The teachings of the Catholic Church concerning warfare are summarized in paragraphs 2309-2317 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. While I'm certainly no authority on Orthodox teaching on warfare, I'm willing to hazard a guess that the teachings of many Orthodox bishops concerning warfare are rather similar to that of the Catholic Church.

Ryan

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. the short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111

107 Cf. GS 79 # 3.


108 GS 79 # 4.


109 GS 80 #3.


110 Cf. Paul VI, PP 53.


111 GS 78 # 6; cf. ⇒ Isa 2:4.

Dear Ryan,

Why call someone a liar, because he was given misinformation by his then CIA head, George Tenet, (a Clinton apointee). Wouldn't that be considered slander? Not that I'm condemning George Tenet, because having a long memory, I recall that funds were cut off in the CIA when the cold war was over...by the Democrats of course. The CIA had become dependant for information on foreign sources because of a shortage of funds, as well as the fact that laws were passed so that information could not be retrieved by using unscrupoulos people. A true fiasco, because who else would give information?

So if we were to be totally objective in our reasoning, then we would have to say that the false information given to Pres. Bush, was completely the cause of the Democrats. So in that sense, it was the mistakes of the Democrats that have caused the problems, and George Bush is suffering it.


Now because Pres. Bush, had other reasons for going to war, other than only the WMD, does not a liar make. If you decide to go for a vacation, because you were given three weeks off, and in the meantime you also had the money, and your children also had vacations, and you all needed a break, would not mean that you are lying about the one because the other one's are true.

There were plenty of reasons for going to war, and the most important one would be to democratize that part of the world. Had we had those concerns and acted before WWII, millions of lives would have been saved. We can only know what did occur by our inaction during the 1920's and 1930's. We can never know what would have happened had we acted.

Well, with the same reasoning, we can only know what is happening now because we acted, we can never know what might have happened in the future, had we not acted. The truth is that we do need the oil, otherwise there is a fear of the world falling into a depression. Should that happen, we can expect wars breaking out all over the world because of mass starvation. Millions upon millions would die either way.

God Bless,

Zenovia