From a Marine: Why We Invaded Iraq
posted by David at 9:51 PM
Track with co.mments
Rate this post:
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Catholics for Bush Yahoo! Group
New Post
New Post
Previous Posts
- The Truth About Iraq
- Catholics Not Welcome by Kerry/Edwards Campaign
- Senator Kerry's Big Lie
- Episcopal Conferences Aid But Don't Substitute Bis...
- The Twelve Tribes of American Politics
- For those critical of the dominant-issue voters
- Catholics should vote for George Bush
- KERRY'S ANSWERS IN DEBATE MISREPRESENTED HIS RECORD
- Catholics Win
- Abstinence Education Shows Its Wisdom
12 Comments:
>>We can't overthrow every murderous tyrant in the world, but when we can, we should.
Hehe, yup, it's in Galatians or something like that. We did not 'overthrow' anybody, we spread our liberty to them. Duh!
Either Bush lied to the soldiers, or he lied to the world. We all heard what he and his team said on TV. Or he said one thing to America and something else to the rest fo the world, in which case he lied too. I don't remember Jesus lying.
Or even simpler. Its not for soldiers to reason, its for them go and die. All countries treat their soldiers the same. This one was not treated any better, obviously. Treated like the ignoramus he is, well deserved, I say. Bush was screaming all over TV that he was going to Iraq for WMD. Now that your little boy marine is back from there, he can go back to living under the rock where he came from.
Oh not to mention that the Pope wanted Bush to stay back, and not go barging in? More loyal than the king, aren't we here are catholicsforbush?
You guys frankly don't have any shame. Unfortunately, its is left the world's rest of the catholics (thankfully we have larger numbers on our side) to redeem the honor of catholics. God bless you!
The essence of logic is in its using.
Your blog has a clear, well defined purpose. Just because Bush meets some aspects - such as his views on life, marriage.. - does not mean that he meets or agrees with catholic values in everything. That is pure fanatical protestant thinking. Hey, I am against abortion, Bush is against it too, so he is for catholicism, and I am for Bush. What rubbish. He has three points in support of catholic beliefs, and all else against.
So you the rest of the world martyr Catholic you and you would save the world how? From France, Russia and China that were stealing MILK from babies in Iraq? ohh no, because they were our supposed allies that didn't agree with us on the war, so that makes them right, and us wrong. Yea.. right, the reason that they didn't want to go to Iraq is certainly clear now. They didn't want to be caught with their murderous hands in Sadams cookie jar. That is how you will save the world? You will get a global coalition of the thieves and thugs? You will go to the UN and trust them to take care of your people? They were running the Oil for Food Program which turned out to be a sham for them so that they coudl steal from mothers and their children. This is what the Catholic faith has taught you? or maybe you want to be one of them, and that is the whole point of your attack.
No, the whole point of my attack is that Catholics are for catholic values, not for Bush or Kerry or Russia or France or even, USA.
Twisting catholic faith for the purposes of a politician, party or even your own country is unpardonable.
Now, first, if you ask me why I attack, Let me tell you - go ask the Pope. If he thought Bush was wrong, please sort out your disagreement with him before you call yourself a catholic and argue with me on thsoe grounds. I dont think I am smarter than the pope, or a better authority on the rationale for going to war than him. I am sure the USA explained all their reasons, including WMD, russia, saddam, children etc to him and he still refused. Sorry, go figure.
Two, if you are not a catholic, why are u in the middle of a discussion where I am attacking a post based on my perception on what catholicism is? (Oh is that sentence too long for you to understand?)
I don't know how old you are, but I would like to point you to all the Popes in the 20th Century. None of them supported any war at all. You are free to agree with the Pope, but war is not a sin. He didn't say that. He didn't change our catechism to read that you can be excommunicated if you choose to support this war. You can however be excommunicated if you support abortion. I am a Catholic, and I don't need to resort to insulting you to get my point across, so write a really long sentence. I am sure I can weed through it fine.
Since you are accusing the President of lying, I am going to ask you to supply proof. Otherwise all you are doing is spreading gossip and innuendo. There is no legitimate proof that the President lied. If you find it, let me know.
Here is the Vatican's newest take on things:
Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq
By Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 10/10/2004)
Senior Vatican officials have decided to put aside their differences
with Tony Blair over the war in Iraq, calling for multinational
troop reinforcements to secure the country's fledgling democracy.
In February last year, both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Angelo
Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, offered some of the fiercest
denunciations of Mr Blair and President George W Bush for their
strike on Saddam Hussein.
Cardinal Angelo Sodano
Their private criticism of Mr Blair was made embarrassingly public
by Vatican officials, who revealed at a press conference that the
Pope had urged him to "make use of all the resources offered by
international law to avoid the tragedy of war".
Now, in light of the post-war chaos, Cardinal Sodano has announced a
newly hawkish line on Iraq from Rome. "The child has been born," he
declared recently on behalf of the Vatican. "It may be illegitimate,
but it's here, and it must be reared and educated."
Despite the Vatican's vociferous opposition to the war, the bloody
terrorist attacks and the continuing insurgency have convinced the
Pope that only an increased military presence, including Nato
troops, can secure peace.
"There is a feeling that there really is no going back," said a
Vatican adviser.
In a trenchant interview in the Italian newspaper, La Stampa,
Cardinal Sodano said that as the crisis in Iraq deepened, the time
had come to forget past differences over the decision to invade.
His comments appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign to
galvanise military and financial support for a democratic Iraq among
critics of the war such as France and Germany.
Both countries have refused to contribute troops to Iraq, while
American and British occupation forces remain in the country.
A subsequent front page editorial in Avvenire, an influential Roman
Catholic magazine which boasts Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's
own vicar, as a board member, calls for "tens of thousands of Nato
troops" to be sent to Iraq to assist the interim government and
ensure free elections.
The prominent theologian, Vittorio Parsi, criticises the "laziness"
of countries that have refused to commit troops to Iraq unless all
occupation soldiers are removed. The Telegraph has learnt that the
editorial was almost certainly commissioned by Cardinal Ruini.
"Even the European countries that opposed the American decision to
overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime know well that an Iraq in the
hands of the worst terrorists and criminals goes against the
interests of all," wrote Mr Parsi.
The Vatican's new stance will hearten Mr Blair and President Bush,
whose campaign for re-election has been overshadowed by the crisis.
Senator John Kerry, his Democratic opponent, has repeatedly
criticised the president for failing to garner sufficient
international support for the invasion of Iraq.
Answers to the last 2 posts above:
1) Bush lied. Unequivocally. Just watch one year old videos of him. Or anyone in his administrarion on their reasons to go to war.
You are right about the excommunication. But then why is not the church doing that?
2) Vatican buries the hatchet.
I have too. Doesn't mean that he did not lie. Now that you are in Iraq and messing up everything and breeding terrirists by the hundreds everyday, its better that we all busry the hatchet. I don't remember Kerry saying he will pull out troops immediately or at all.
Its a sick baby you hold. No point in dropping it, when you made it sick to begin with.
Here's what Bush has to say about WMD. Go through the entire list please.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=WMD&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Here's more - Bush speech transcript
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916543,00.html
Now, back to Kerry.
True, killing is anathema to Church and a sin. So, abortion is also to be rejected. You are right.
However, in Christianity, there exists the concept of free will which is essentially the freedom for you to sin. Jesus does not enforce morality, he asks for you to join him willingly.
War is killing too. Perhaps none of us want to take Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek literally. Was that a joke he made, by any chance?
Or even better. The ten commandments explicity prohibits worshipping any other/ false god other than our father in heaven. So I guess it is more important for us to put an end to the various religions and heresies before anything else, right? After all there is a specific commandment against it, while there is none against abortion. (Does not make it any less evil).
So why don't us conscientious argue for legislating it?
Because we know that we will be laughed out of the country. Or we just don't have the guts to pick a real fight with anyone. Neither Bush nor Kerry will accept it.
So what's the point of suporting Bush against Kerry?
Bush - anti-abortion.
Kerry - Pro-abortion
Bush - pro-religious freedom
Kerry - pro-religios freedom
Bush - lied about reasons for invading Iraq.
Kerry - was clueless, so didn't lie. He didn't invade Iraq.
They all balance out.
Supporting Bush just because of one issue - abortion - is nothing but supporting the Satan with the wimpier tail.
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/abort7e_20040907.htm
Catholics allowed pro-choice vote
They can back abortion-rights candidates, if they agree on other issues
September 7, 2004
BY PATRICIA MONTEMURRI
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Anti-abortion Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, as long as they agree with the candidate on a range of other issues.
That pronouncement in an Italian magazine from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top spokesman on Catholic teachings, went unnoticed in the din of presidential election-year politics.
But it could reverberate in a close election, which pits President George W. Bush, a conservative Christian abortion opponent, against Democratic Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic who favors abortion rights.
Catholics account for about one-fourth of the Michigan electorate and are evenly split between Kerry and Bush, said pollster Ed Sarpolus of the Lansing-based EPIC/MRA. Michigan is among a handful of battleground states expected to decide the election.
The position is not new for the church, but it has been obscured in the debate about access to abortion.
That debate is louder this year, with calls by a handful of bishops to deny communion to pro-choice politicians, including Kerry, who could become the first Catholic in the White House in 41 years and since abortion rights became a polarizing political issue.
In essence, a vote for a pro-choice politician is not necessarily sinful if a Catholic, who is also against abortion, believes the candidate's other positions outweigh the politician's support for abortion rights, Ratzinger said. He heads the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The Rev. Thomas Reese, a longtime Vatican observer and Jesuit priest who edits America magazine, said:
"If the voter says 'I like this candidate only because he or she is pro-abortion,' that's clearly a no-no. If, on the other hand, the voter says, 'and I like this candidate because he or she supports everything I like, but is wrong on abortion, and I've decided to vote for the person on these other issues,' that's alright."
Paul Long, executive director of the Michigan Catholic Conference, which lobbies in Lansing for the seven Michigan dioceses, said that's an accurate description of Ratzinger's comments. But he said it won't stop his mission to make abortion a priority issue.
Ratzinger's memo was a response to some bishops who said Catholic politicians who favor abortion rights should be denied communion.
Ratzinger's statements should not be construed as letting pro-choice Catholic politicians off the hook. Ratzinger said Catholic politicians show "formal cooperation with evil" if they consistently campaign and vote for abortion rights, and that Catholic pastors and bishops should counsel and warn such politicians that they could, in time, be refused communion.
Archdiocese of Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida has said he prefers to work with politicians behind the scenes rather than confront them directly.
Two years ago, as Catholic candidate Jennifer Granholm -- who favors abortion rights -- sought the governor's office, Maida said, "it is good for us to consider where each of the candidates stand on the whole spectrum of life issues -- especially concern for the poor and the vulnerable, and most of all, where the candidate stands on abortion."
Like other voters, Catholics tend to rank the economy and the war as top issues. Abortion generally ranks as a top issue by only 5 percent of Catholic voters polled. "There's a long history of bucking the church," said Sarpolus. Michigan Catholics, especially in metro Detroit, tend to be older, blue-collar voters with roots in the Democratic Party.
Marie Fehribach, 66, a retired social worker and Catholic voter from Sterling Heights, said the bishops' statements often obscure issues involving poverty, peace, health care and human rights, on which the church takes positions.
Fehribach said she and her husband, Bob, 77, are "definitely pro-life ... and it's bigger than abortion."
She said she will vote for Kerry.
Nancy Van Son, 51, of Macomb Township is a churchgoing Catholic who says her opposition to abortion motivates how she votes. Catholics who personally oppose abortion, but vote for pro-choice candidates, she says, "allow somebody else to do an abortion."
Still, she says, she's lucky to have in Bush a candidate who shares her views on abortion and other issues. Asked whether abortion should be the key issue in picking a politician, Van Son said, "As a Catholic, I want to tell you yes.
"But as a citizen, there are so many issues that we have to consider . . . a strong economy and to be free from terror."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( www.usccb.org) provides a statement on "faithful citizenship," which catalogues dozens of the church's stance on issues.
A newly formed organization called Catholic Voting Project established a Web site, www.votingcatholic.org, to help Catholics sort through where Bush and Kerry stand on more than 50 issues identified by the Catholic bishops. The Web site's promoters call it "an expansive view of the Catholic faith" and it has an online quiz to help voters see how they match up with Kerry and Bush.
It was formed partly to counter another group's online feature, called the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," which says Catholics must adhere to "five nonnegotiable issues" on the church's positions against abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.
Catholic Voting Project spokesman Christopher Korzen, a theology student at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass., said the documents don't give priority to one issue: "We feel that this is a discussion that has to happen publicly among Catholics."
All Catholics should be aware that although Senator Kerry is not in PUBLIC ACCORD with all Catholic doctrine and teachings, his private views are far closer to what the Church teaches. George W. Bush is not a Catholic. His rhetoric is for public consumption only. I offer the following prediction. If Bush is re-elected, abortion will still be available and common. A Republican Supreme court, a Republican President, and a Republican Congress all had their chance to wipe out legalized abortion once and for all. Yet Abortion is still a widespread and common source of birth control. The Democrats have been out of power for four years. Why is Roe vs. Wade still the law of the land if the Republicans and Bush are supposed to all good and holy? Catholics don't be fooled by mere political rhetoric. The reason I will vote for Senator Kerry, is because I have now come to realize that Bush and the Republican Party are using the Pro-Life movement for political gain. The hard and bitter truth is that Abortion will still be here four years from now, no matter who is elected President of the United States. I am a staunch Pro-Lifer and I am not happy with that fact. Yes, Kerry is Pro-choice and Bush is Pro-Life. But Catholics must look to their hearts to realize what is happening outside the single issue of Abortion. Bush the man, mouths the right things, but in secret he does little to change the status quo. The man only wants to get re-elected. Once we give it to him, nothing will change. It is a well known fact among political insiders that the Bush family is very Pro-Choice. Bush's grandfather was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood. Type into the Google search engine, the terms "Prescott Bush" and "Planned Parenthood", and judge for yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home