Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Pope condemns Iraqi insurgents

No, but he could have.

The pope, while alluding to violence in Iraq, avoided direct mention of the United States. But Howe-Kerr says the pope’s message indicates his growing disapproval of U.S. policy in Iraq.

“He’s been pretty anti-war (war in Iraq) for some time,” Howe-Kerr said.

“He’s been as direct as he could get without it being a direct repudiation of the Bush administration.”

No where in this article does it state that the pope may be indirectly talking about the actions of the insurgents and their roadside bombings, assasinations of Iraq officials, and the targeting of Iraqi police and election workers. Why is it when the pope speaks about his disapproval of the war in Iraq the meaing of his words are reported to focus on American actions and not the barbaric actions of the insurgents? Oh, I forgot about liberal media bias. Now I understand.


Blogger Tim Huegerich said...

The same liberal media that beat the war drums incessantly like they were on the payroll of the Pentagon (not inconceivable)? C'mon, man. You're blaming the messenger here.

The problem for war-supporters is not what the never-saw-carnage-they-didn't-cherish-except-in-poor-black-neighborhoods media says but what the Holy Father actually says. It's common sense that when you militarily attack someone, they will fight back. That is why we as Catholics have a presumption against war. It's not pretty. They don't welcome us as liberators (especially when we prop up a new government led by Iraqi ex-pats rather than representatives of the current population and refuse to award contracts to Iraqi contractors or otherwise pro-actively create gainful employment opportunities). War is a defeat for humanity because it requires looking at human beings through the barrel of a gun--whether its our gun or the insurgents'. Sometimes, defensive war can be justified, as an absolute last resort.

The thing I do respect about supporters of particular wars, especially those who volunteer to serve in the military out of principle, is that they recognize the very real presence of evil and injustice in the world and they correctly affirm that we are morally obligated to do something about it. I just question whether we are really committed to pursuing all the non-violent options available to us--which we are first and foremost morally obligated to pursue. I am a strong supporter of legislation to create a (don't laugh) Department of Peace that would do more to pro-actively develop and implement non-violent solutions (e.g. coordinate mass civil disobediance against Saddam within Iraq--worked in India, the American South, and South Africa, among others!)--on a very modest budget. Google it to find out more.

6:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home