Last week, near the end of my bike ride to work, I spotted hundreds of small white crosses staked in the ground east of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in downtown D.C. Wondering what they were for, I saw a young woman carrying a makeshift sign saying "America in Iraq" that she was preparing to hang someplace.
I immediately swerved across the grass toward two men conversing with each other, obviously discussing the logistics of their display. I stopped my bike about five feet away from them, and they stopped talking and looked at me. One of the men had short gray hair, professional-looking glasses and a baseball hat that said "KENT STATE." The other guy had jeans and a black shirt, and looked like a roadie.
"Did you get permission of the families before you put these up?" I demanded.
Gray Guy started glaring at me and said nothing — since he seemed older and had an air of authority about him, I assumed he was in charge. Black Shirt said no, they didn't need to get permission.
"Are you sure that everybody you're representing here agrees with your point of view? Because I'm absolutely sure that's not true."
No, no, said Black Shirt. This wasn't about pressing a political agenda, it was for the troops. I didn't buy it. You don't put a thousand crosses next to the Vietnam Memorial and then say you have no polical agenda.
"Who's going to protect the innocent people in Iraq if we leave?" I continued. Now Gray Guy was looking like he wanted to kill me. (Clearly, I was wrong: he wasn't in charge at all. I never did figure out why he was there.) Both of them were confused by my question.
"You mean the people who died on 9/11?"
"No, that has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about the innocent Iraqis who get blown up by terrorists every day."
"Are you talking about the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died?"
We interrupt this blog entry for a special message to the anti-war crowd: if you're going to pull a number straight out of your nether regions, you should1) make it sound real — try 104,000 or 117,000, anything but a round 100,000;
2) don't use the same freakin' number you used for the Gulf War (and mouthed by Gary Oldman in "Air Force One"); and
3) make the number increase as time goes by! In 2003, you people were already saying we killed 100,000 civilians. Well, surely we've killed at least 200,000 by now, right? I mean, give our boys some credit for diligence at least!
Back to the entry...
We went back and forth. Black Shirt, who introduced himself as Marcus, said he was a former Marine like me, and was "in during the Gulf War" (I'm not sure what he did). He kept insisting that his group was utterly apolitical, and that he didn't want Iraq veterans ending up like a lot of Vietnam veterans. Twenty-five percent of Iraq veterans were returning home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, he told me. (Which is a funny statistic, because a much smaller percentage of veterans were in actual combat.) In my experience, I replied, the vast majority of Iraq veterans considered it a worthy mission and that I personally considered it an honor to have served.
Marcus asked me to help him put up an American flag while we talked. I asked if it would be displayed respectfully, and he assured me that it would. I said sure, since I was already late for work. Once it was up, I shook hands with him, he gave me a postcard describing their group ("Veterans for Peace L.A.") and I wished him luck with his event, even though we did not agree on many things.
Because Marcus was a cordial and likeable man, I will avoid making snide comments about his group's headquarters of Santa Monica, one of the wealthiest places on the planet (and most liberal). But to return to the reason I pulled over in the first place, I think he and his cohorts are being disingenuous when they claim they have no political agenda. To consider a war properly, you have to consider the objective and ask whether the costs are worth it. Erecting a thousand crosses, without any context, is a falsehood.
If a thousand men have died in order to make a more just peace in the Middle East, and have slain thousands of murderers and thugs bent on oppressing a nation of 25 million, and thus made the people of the United States more secure, then I would say the cost is terrible but worth it. Better to hunt down and kill al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq, humiliating and eliminating their leadership, than to let them attack us again.
Thirty years ago, North Vietnam launched an offensive into the South, despite a promise not to invade. There was no American response, because there were no Americans to respond, the last U.S. forces having been removed in 1973. Just as anti-Communists had predicted, it was a human disaster. Tens of thousands were executed, and hundreds of thousands more were herded into "re-education camps" (a.ka. "political prisons.") Many Vietnamese took to the seas in rickety boats, preferring to risk death rather than live under the Communist regime.
The Left, having engineered the U.S. pullout from Vietnam, was an accessory to these crimes. There was no lack of evidence for the North's ruthlessness, or its ideological commitment to dominating the South. Leftists didn't care, because their goal was to shame America for its "sins," not because they cared about the Vietnamese or even peace itself.
Today, the Left's goal is more or less identical, except instead of portraying American servicemen as bloodlusting animals, they show them as victims. Either way, they use tales of human suffering as commodities which they sell to the American public, hoping that they can be convinced to abandon another ally. Iraqis, like the South Vietnamese, would get slaughtered, and the region could disintegrate into war and mayhem, but "America the imperialist bully" would suffer a grave defeat. As for the innocent who would die — too bad for them.
Given that, putting those thousand crosses next to the Vietnam Memorial is actually quite appropriate. Marcus, if you read this, I'll still take you at your word that you're "all about supporting the troops." If that's true, you're running with a disreputable crowd that doesn't give a damn one way or another.
Better to hunt down and kill al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq, humiliating and eliminating their leadership, than to let them attack us again.
Is the killing part really a requirement?
Preemptive war. I can't say it's always and everywhere wrong, but how Christlike is it? I can't say a state should be placed on the same level as an individual, but what about the individuals fighting under the banner of that state?
Killing isn't "always" a requirement, no. In the presence of a functioning, stable society, threats to the common good can be dealt with in non-lethal ways. Iraq has been progressing toward that condition, but it isn't finished yet.
I would say that protecting the weak and the innocent by risking your body and life is about as Christlike as it gets.
Ok, so the only reason we never saw Christ implementing lethal "protection" is because he lived in the presence of a functioning, stable society, and had no access to situations to the contrary?
And once Iraq arrives at that condition, we won't need to perform preemptive lethal manhunts anymore, but for now we need to kill to prevent killing. :-(
It's important to distinguish between killing and murder. If Al Qaeda would lay down their arms and take part peacefully in the political process, no, it wouldn't be necessary to kill them.
You're using the sophistry of moral equivalence to paint the Marines on the same level as Al Qaeda or Saddam. They're not. The Marines may not be perfect, but I'd sure rather be on their side than on the side that deliberately as a matter of policy murders civilians to make a political point. The Marines don't do that.
First, I would be interested in the proof behind us leaving Vietnam due to a Leftist conspiracy rather than there being incredibly slim hopes of victory.
Second... "In the presence of a functioning, stable society, threats to the common good can be dealt with in non-lethal ways." Why are we killing people via lethal injection and the electric chair in the United States?
Third, are you attempting to link the battle against al Qaeda with the battle against Iraq in this article?
Finally, how does humiliating anyone make this world a better place?
Humiliating the right people may render them ineffective for future missions.
Justin, I think you're changing Christ's life from an example to an instruction manual. He did not do all things because he was not all men: he was one man, and not one entrusted with any worldly authority ("My kingdom is not of this world," etc.) The argument that "Jesus didn't do it, therefore it must be bad or at least suspect" is flawed. Had Jesus been a head of state that was threatened by external attack, and chose not to act, then you could use his life as an example.
Yurodivi, well put. Uncomfortable as it may be for many Christians, it may be one's solemn duty to unsheath the sword, and this can't be reduced to "killing to prevent killing." It's killing to restore justice, which is the proper object of any use of force, whether by a person or a state.
Chuck:
1. The idea that North Vietnam, even with the backing of China and the Soviet empire, could have defeated the U.S. military in open combat is ludicrous. We'll never know for sure, but American forces caused between 8 and 12 casualties for every one they took in Vietnam. There was "no chance of success" because we decided to play the game between the 50-yard line and our own end zone.
The error -- from a strictly military point of view -- was that we didn't bomb Haiphong harbor to smithereens and unleash airstrikes on every legitimate military target we could identify. Had we deployed overwhelming force, we would have saved the Vietnamese people from oppression (or at least a lot of them) and perhaps ended the Soviet threat sooner, by proving we would effectively resist their global ambitions.
As for the proof that we left Vietnam because of a "leftist conspiracy," surely you read about the so-called "peace movement"? Our dumb political-military strategy in Vietnam predated it, but its existence precluded a smarter strategy.
2. Several U.S. states employ the death penalty because it can be a just means of retribution. By saying that "threats to the common good can be dealt with in non-lethal ways" I did not mean that they must thus always be non-lethal. Execution is a permissible option for the state under Catholic teaching, and natural law. It was not necessary to send thousands of troops to Oklahoma to find Timothy McVeigh, even though he was a self-proclaimed revolutionary bent on overthrowing the Federal government. He was found, arrested, tried, and executed using normal judicial means.
3. I'm not linking al Qaeda to Iraq. Al Qaeda did that for me in December, when bin Laden permitted Zarqawi's merry band of murderous thugs to call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq." There were plenty of terrorists already in Iraq when we invaded, and across the border in Syria. Anyone who wants to say that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq does not want to acknowledge the plain situation.
4. Humiliating evildoers makes the world a better place because potential evildoers will be less inclined to do evil, and may go into a more honest career.
Yurodivi, you're right on, I in no way meant to call our obedient soldiers murderers, and want to apologize if anyone felt that I did.
The difference between their murdering and our killing is in the intention. They intend to destroy life, we intend to prolong life. Specifically, we intend to stop the murderers. At some point, our efforts result in their death, but our intent is to STOP them, not kill them. That's why I continually have this problem with outright intending death, rather than it being an unfortunate symptom of our protection efforts.
1. I see how "we should have bombed more" would be a great solution to not waking the sleeping bears. Maybe we would have won, but how many people would still be alive to tell about it?
2. "Execution is a permissible option for the state under Catholic teaching, and natural law." Yes, to protect citizens from the worst of criminals, but we have far better ways of separating them from society other than the taking of their lives.
3. Report after report has proclaimed that the information linking al Qaeda and Iraq was faulty. We began this war fighting al Qaeda and searching for weapons of mass destruction, but since the evidence has shown both of these to be faulty reasons, the reasoning has shifted to "spreading freedom." The American people wouldn't have supported this war the way they did if it wasn't linked to 9/11 and the Bush regime knew that.
4. Vote Republican!
1. We don't know how many people would have died either way.
2. A full discussion of the death penalty is really outside the topic here. I don't mind talking about it, but maybe we should just leave it aside.
3. President Bush said during the initial Afghan campaign that his aim was to liberate peoples in the service of peace. There was no "bait and switch" at work.
And I notice you just skipped right over my point that we're fighting al Qaeda and global terrorism in Iraq, and assert that's a "faulty reason." Well, if we're not fighting al Qaeda, then why is Zarqawi's gang calling itself al Qaeda? Why did bin Laden call for jihadists to go to Iraq before we invaded? Because he was sympathetic to secular Baathism?
(I do like the subtle jab of calling the Bush Administration a "regime," as if it was a military junta and not a duly elected government. Perhaps you're not too fond of democracy either...?)
4. I wish more people would vote Republican, and I also wish the opposition would come out of its present stage of dementia.
1. Probably less.
2. The fact is, most right wingers blame the democrats for a "Culture of Death" and I truly believe both sides are at fault, but I'll leave it at that.
3. I think you just pulled a bait and switch. We disagree that the Iraq war and the Afghan war should be treated separately. I agree with the war in Afghanistan, but not on the war in Iraq. I believe Bush linked the two because I truly believe most people wouldn't have thought the same. I am glad you separate al Qaeda and Saddam. From what I was hearing, Bush wasn't when this all began.
For your comment about my use of regime (from m-w.com)
"Main Entry: reˇgime
Variant(s): also réˇgime /rA-'zhEm, ri- also ri-'jEm/
Function: noun
Etymology: French régime, from Latin regimin-, regimen
1 a : REGIMEN 1 b : a regular pattern of occurrence or action (as of seasonal rainfall) c : the characteristic behavior or orderly procedure of a natural phenomenon or process
2 a : mode of rule or management b : a form of government c : a government in power d : a period of rule"
4. I voted Republican due to the Pro-Life issue. I considered both sides of the argument and made a difficult decision. I wish more people would look at both sides of the argument instead of simply calling them names and turning their back.
Eric, I would like to thank you personally for reaffirming my belief that the term "Christlike" is just a euphemism for "power over," or perhaps more directly, "hegemony."
Your logic is impeccable... sure, it's comparably better to lose 3,000 Americans and blow up 25 million of our enemies. However, you're:
a) in the privileged position of not facing your immediate death at the hands of someone
b) ignoring the horrible realities of war
c) seemingly uncapable of thinking critically about power structures and the wisdom you've inherited.
The one thing you neglect to notice about your opinions is that, regardless of what's "just" or "normal" or "Christlike," you will always be able to rationalize away the worst atrocities. In your world view, it seems, even the worst carnage and destruction might be "better" than some fictive alternative.
Until, that is, said atrocities involve your mom, dad, or sister. (You know, like happened in the retributive act of 9/11.) If you were born in a different country, with the same mindset, you may equally well say that it's better to lose 15 operatives if 3,000 New Yorker heathens were killed. Think.
Before you use "liberal" as a smear word, consider your humanity and develop some empathy. It doesn't matter if it's an insurgent or if it's your grandma... someone getting their head blown off by heavy artillery is not right in any way.
Look closer.
Haha, I said "uncapable." Correct that: incapable.
Doesn't change the thought.
Josh, let me try to pick through the smorgasbord of thoughts you offered.
First, I don't know if you've been read Catholic Light at all, but let me bring you up to speed: I was part of the initial invasion of Iraq. That does not make me correct about all matters relating to it, nor does it make me an expert in modern warfare. But it does add something to my perspective, I think.
My civil affairs team was in direct combat, and we had mortars, machine guns, and RPGs fired at us. On several occasions, we came within a short distance of being killed by those weapons. I have seen real battle wounds. So when you say that I am "not facing [my] immediate death at the hands of someone," that's true, but I know what that's like. What you call the "the horrible realities of war" is just an abstraction to you, but it is a living memory to me.
I can't make much sense of the rest of your words. I don't know where I said that it was okay to kill 25 million people, and I don't know why dying from heavy artillery is any more horrible than dying some other way.
If you want to have a discussion, by all means, make a comment -- you can be as passionate as you like. But if you want to give ad hominem lectures in complete ignorance of who you're talking to, then please refrain.
Another source about the Vatican's stance against the war if you'd like to check it out. This one quotes the current Pope before he was Pope.
I disagree, and as the Holy Father pointed out, disagreeing about the use of force is not the same thing as dissenting over doctrine. Reasonable Catholics can disagree about the former: "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty."
Given the U.N.'s hostility to Catholic values and its automatic defense of oppressive regimes, it always saddens me to see a prince of the Church defend that diseased organization. I am bewildered that anyone would assign any moral status to an entity that participated in the theft of over $20 billion in oil from Iraq, then dragged its feet over enforcing its own resolutions against its co-conspirator, the Iraqi government.
So if GW was Catholic, he could receive communion, but the fact remains that the current Pope and the former Pope along with as many other sources close to the Vatican that I could find stood against the war stating that it was not a just war and that the right way to do it was to go through the UN. The current Pope, before he was Pope even went so far as to cite the Catechism in stating that it was not a just war.
On many many occasions the former Pope and the current Pope have pleaded with us to not abandon the UN, but to give it life and to make it the organization that it should be.
Just because they have had issues with corruption doesn't make their apprehension toward the war in Iraq wrong. Further, it doesn't make it right for the US to make ourselves the proper authority to wage a preemptive war, because we weren't.
As far as capital punishment goes Paragraph 56 of Evangelicum vitae addresses the Holy See's stance.
Chuck, my friend: we went to the U.N. and tried to get it to enforce its own resolutions. The Gulf War didn't end with a peace treaty, it ended with a cease-fire, and anytime its terms were violated, under international law we could resume hostilities.
I do not believe that the Holy Father's view is the correct one. At this point, the Vatican's "official" position on warfare looks very nebulous and is extremely confusing to someone like me who truly wants to understand what they are saying. I fail to see how the U.N. qualifies as a "competent authority" as it is an unelected, unaccountable body with no reponsibility for anyone. How it can thus legitimately authorize military action is a mystery.
More: the late Holy Father condemned the original Gulf War, too, which was authorized by the U.N., and was an indisputable case of a strong state preying on a weaker one. There was no "pre-emption" of anything: Iraq invaded Kuwait and began subjugating its populace and confiscating its wealth. (You may recall that the international Left mobilized to protest that war, too.)
"Issues with corruption" is a laughable euphemism: THE U.N. LET PEOPLE STEAL TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION! If a cop looks the other way while a 7-11 gets robbed, would you consider him a good steward of public safety?
I've read that paragraph in Evangelium Vitae at least a couple of dozen times in the last decade. Thanks for pointing it out again.
Excellent. That's all I wanted to hear.
As long as you're willing to say that you stand with the US and against the Holy Father, I'm all set.
Sometimes you have to be a flaming liberal to stand with the Holy Father and disagree with the popular opinion.
That's guts.
You're being disingenuous, Chuck, and a little childish. Disagreeing with the Holy Father on a matter of temporal does not equate to "stand[ing] with the US and against the Holy Father," as if they are in essential opposition to one another. I am a Catholic first, and an American second.
That does not entail splitting the difference between the two, or picking one over the other. Where my faith and my country's values conflict, I will follow my faith. That's why I'm against many things that enjoy widespread popular support: pornography, abortion, artificial contraception, etc., and in favor of things like the sacraments and prayer that aren't exactly "cool."
But it is not a matter of faith that the Iraq War is unjust. That's not Eric's opinion, that's a fact that the Holy Father has stated (if you would bother to follow the link I gave you.) In order to say that to support the war is to go against the church, you have to say you're more faithful to the Pope's message than the Pope is. Can you see how that is indefensible?
"I do not believe that the Holy Father's view is the correct one." == "stand[ing] with the US and against the Holy Father,"
I will accept that it is not a sin for you to disagree with the Holy Father if you will realize that many times when you bash "liberals" you are in fact bashing the Holy Father as well.
This should be the "Republican Right" not the "Catholic Light." And they are not the same thing.
Being childish would be saying something like, "nice job on speaking of yourself in the third person!"
First, in your lingo: "disagree" != "stand against." My wife and I disagree sometimes, but that doesn't mean we're "against" each other. We're still on the same side.
I don't think the Holy Father is a liberal (or a conservative for that matter), so when I criticize liberals or liberalism, he isn't included.
Liberalism, in my view, abets the culture of death with its program of economic statism and sexual license, which corrodes family life and exults governments to the level of a false god. The Republicans aren't perfect, but they're at least fighting for many of the right things. The Democrats have largely given in to liberalism, and thus I believe they're fighting for many of the wrong things. So I'll vote Republican unless they turn bad, too.
Eric, you've found the deep end.
Nah, I didn't find the deep end -- it seems to have found me.
Eric:
I think chuck beat you to it.
I mean ... "disagreeing with the Holy Father on a point on which HF himself SEZ you can disagree with him" = "stand against" is so moronic that the person who puts it forth is just ... beyond reason.
Try to follow me here fellas. You have an argument about a proposition. Side A believes that it is true, and Side B believes that it is false.
Side A is in opposition to side B. "Stand against" is a phrase used to represent opposition.
Now imagine the proposition as being, "the war in Iraq was a Just War."
You are on Side A, the Pope and the Former Pope are on Side B.
Here are your original words: "As long as you're willing to say that you stand with the US and against the Holy Father, I'm all set."
You didn't qualify that by saying "you stand against the Holy Father on this issue." If that's what you meant, then fine, nobody will fault you for inexact writing in a comments box (thank God). But it does undercut your argument that I am being an unfaithful (or at least disobedient) Catholic by thinking the Iraq War was justified. The Holy Father doesn't think that; nor should you.
I have a problem with people who get on the stump as Catholics and start bashing people who oppose the war as if the Catholic Church is a proponent of war.
If you want to talk about abortion, family values or stem cell research, that's fine. But don't mention welfare, capital punishment, environmental policy, health care or anything financial or relating to the poor as if the Republican Party is somehow better than the rest. I'm not saying that people should become Republican or Democrat. I'm saying both parties are wrong and very twisted at present. Pushing the Republican Agenda on a blog named the "Catholic Light" is incredibly misleading in my opinion. I think too many people blind themselves from the truth by listening to the Republican Party first and the Church second.
You have this idea that the liberals are going to get us and the current administration is going to save us. Let's band together as Catholics FIRST and everything else second.
Your enthusiasm for the faith is great. I'm always glad to see someone who is really psyched about being Catholic. I just wish you didn't link Patriotism with God, as I genuinely believe much of the current patriotic movement is a movement against God.
My apologies for double posting but...
You lost this argument, and you'll lose a lot more.
But it isn't because of my intelligence. You see, if you listen to what the Holy Father says, and then agree with him unless you have a rock solid argument against his argument, you will have one of the greatest theologians of our time on your side.
Sadly for you, he was on my side this time.
Its been a pleasure.
Chuck, I have never gotten on anything and proclaimed that the Church is in favor of the Iraq War. What I've attempted to do is show why I belive it is justified, using Catholic and natural-law principles. I freely admit that I could be wrong, but if you want to show me the error of my ways, you're not going about it very well. If you want to convince more people, you ought to drop the condescending tone, not to mention the self-righteous "more papal than the Pope" attitude.
You could be right about the two major political parties being "wrong," but that strikes me as very reductionistic thinking. There are no morally substantive differences between the parties? Our faith does not require us to support welfare or oppose capital punishment, but it does require us to stand up for the helpless (i.e., the unborn) and the oppressed (i.e., the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places). The Democratic Party as an instituion is in favor of any abortion at any time, and it has made excuses for the oppressors rather than attempting to mitigate or eliminate their evil deeds. I am not ashamed to support the Republican Party, though it is not a permanent affiliation.
I'm not exactly sure what we were arguing about, other than whether it's permissible to differ with the Holy Father about prudential matters. He says it is; I'm inclined to agree.
For those of you who don't know what this pissing contest is about, this argument is spanning two blogs. The other is The Stinky Cheese Pub.
First, you are an incredibly ignorant asshole.
I hope that's gutsy enough.
"Chuck, I note that you don't have the guts to call me 'an incredibly ignorant asshole' on Catholic Light."
"One of the downsides is that I have to occasionally justify myself to uncharitable programmers who could (I'm guessing) stand a little more real-life interaction with actual people."
"I note that you don't have the guts to make such charges on Catholic Light."
All are credited to Eric.
In my experience with you, you have badgered anyone who has an opinion differing from yours. I have been a bit awnry in my argument with you, but I think that this is level of argument is atypical for me. The reason I have become so enflamed with this argument is your lack of willingness to listen to the other side's opinion, and to go to the point of redefinining "liberal" or "liberalism" to mean something genuinely horrible.
I have a liberal arts education, which under your definition would make me something of a monster.
Your experience in Iraq certainly gives you a level of knowledge about it, but knowledge gained from one person's experience or even experience in general is not all encompassing. No, I have not been in Iraq or in a gun battle, but I have studied Just War Theory, and what we took part in wasn't a Just War in my opinion and in many others' including the Holy Father and his predecessor. We can argue more at length on that if you'd like, but last time I tried we went around and around about what "stand against" means.
I apologize for becoming too emotional during this argument. I should have left it at logic, but it appeared that any time I or someone else did, they would get insulted. I will not apologize for calling you an ignorant asshole though, because you appear to have the uncanny ability to make irrational, blanket statements and insult myself and others for no good reason all the while posting under the blog title of "The Catholic Light." I don't see how your articles are educating anyone to the Catholic Teaching. The only thing I see, and is a common trend in this country, is trying to form the Church into a set of beliefs that WE hold. In your case, I believe that is the set of beliefs of the Republican Party.
Chuck, I have a liberal arts degree too, and I am (please God) finishing another one this summer, and so I don't think the word "liberal" is a swear word.
Leftism -- by which I mean those who believe in radical secularism, statist economics, and an internationalism that dispenses with nation-states -- is badly misguided and wrong in many important respects. Not all, to be sure, but many. I do not think that this sort of Leftism is compatible with the Kingdom of God, and I am convinced that implementing it is contrary to the common good of our country.
Believing in leftist ideas doesn't make you a horrible person, but we're discussing ideas (or we were, at least.) If you don't want your ideas critiqued, posting them on a public blog is a bad move. I've gotten my share of criticism over the last three years here, and I think I've only deleted two ill-tempered comments directed at me. Visitors can read what you've written and decide for themselves whether "childish" and "uncharitable" are inappropriate adjectives for your later comments. They can also decide whether answering challenges to my fidelity to the Holy Father and the Church constitutes "badgering."
Chuck, I am listening to your opinions. That's why I respected your comments enough to give fairly lengthy, point-by-point answers. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I'm not listening.
The far right then would be Nazi Germany. All I've said is that neither the far right or the far left is correct. I know you think that is reductionalist thinking, but I earnestly believe it. Our right wing has it correct when it comes to family values, abortion, and stem cell research, but I think they are genuinely flawed when it comes to the poor, finances in general and warfare.
I've never said that one side was right, I'm just sick of people thinking that you have to pick one or the other and then stick with all of their values. I don't believe it is possible while still being a Catholic.
If you think that telling someone that they don't have the guts to post their comments on your blog is childish or uncharitable then sling those rocks buddy, I'm sure that's not a glass house you're sitting in.
It isn't "childish" to point out that you were making disparaging comments on your own blog, and not here where they would be seen. And you have been uncharitable because you twist other people's statements instead of actually attempting to understand what they are saying.
For the tenth time: I have never said every Catholic had to agree with me. I did not say we should "pick one [side] or the other and then stick with all of their values." I have said that I support the Republican Party because I think they are the most consonant with Catholic teachings, and their policies are the best for the common good. I don't believe in every plank in the party's platform, or every action of the Bush Administration, nor do I think I should.
The reason I characterized your thinking as reductionistic is because of statements like that. You're either completely in favor of one political party, or you're completely aloof because they both have flaws. (What human institution doesn't?) You're either with the Pope, or you're against him. There is room for legitimate disagreement on many temporal matters, and I completely respect that you disagree with Republicans on economic matters. I wish you would extend that same courtesy to others.
[It doesn't look like we're getting any new info from this comment thread, so let's call it at this point.]