Local Dominican nun Agnes Schneider says "you never settle anything by war."
Do any of my readers believe such nonsense, and if so, how was the issue of whether or not to exterminate Jews settled?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contact Denis
About Me
- Denis Navratil
- I love Racine Wisconsin. But I am not naive about the challenges we face. I have chosen the name Free Racine for a reason. For Racine to realize its great potential, we must free ourselves from our own failed policies, from high taxes, failing schools, and self serving politicians.
College Fix
- Althouse
- College Fix
- Journal Times
- LiberTEA Racine Blog
- Protein Wisdom
- WSJ opinion
- blogging blue
- breitbart
- caledonia unplugged
- charlie sykes
- city of racine
- drudge report
- instapundit
- investors editorials
- jihadwatch
- lucianne
- national review
- newsbusters
- racine uncovered
- real clear politics
- real debate wisconsin
- root river siren
- townhall
- wisconsin opinion
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(182)
-
▼
April
(16)
- RUSD Radicals
- Cost of Global Warming?
- Anon's Inner Commie
- Dog Decades
- Poor Developments
- Indoctrination High
- Question of the Day
- HSA Attack
- Settled Opinion
- Becker Calls for School Vouchers
- Teaching Leftism at Horlick
- Crisis!!!!!!
- Having it Both Ways
- RUSD and Slavery
- Tennis Courts Disappoint
- Child Laborers Union Needed
-
▼
April
(16)
22 comments:
Local Dominican Nun ought to read what B-16 said, approvingly, about the monuments to our dead troops scattered all around the USA.
Or--she could read Ghandi's statement about using violence when needed.
Or she could spend more time in contemplation before the Holy Eucharist. (This would be the best. She'd be holy instead of mouthy.)
I think that the person who stated this was referring more to the current war in Iraq than to many other wars. Remind me, why we are in Iraq again? Yes, yes, remove cruel dictator. I know. But in this process have we made the situation even worse than it was?
Anon, unlike you, when someone uses plainly understandable English, I assume that they meant what they said. But you assume that the statement "you never settle anything with war" actually meant "war can't settle anything in Iraq." Even though you are changing the subject, lets go with it. War has settled the subject of whether Saddam Hussien should continue to threaten his neighbors and the people of Iraq. So either her original statement or your revisionist one are both wrong.
War in Iraq has put paid to 1000's of terrorists the dead just do not do much.
Proved that the terrorists do not care who they kill be it women in kids by bombing markets or killing aid works.
Proved the Islam is really at war with the West
Proved that the Terrorists feel that their Islam is the only Islam and if you do not believe you can be killed too.
That Iran needs to be dealt with
Unfortunately they were not exterminated. Those that created the war suffered the least.
I direct the good sister to the post on Al Jezeera with highlights from the great Peace-maker Ayman Al Zawahiri, 2nd only to Osama Bin Laden. With his latest pronouncements from the "Bin-Cave".
He is angry and admonishing of his fellow Muslim's for NOT helping to win the war in IRAQ. He is essentially admiting defeat. Al Z. and ZarQowi and Bin-Man, decided after the quick defeat in Afganistan, that the war against the West would be in Iraq. Bush has been admonished and demonized, and yet has managed to defeat and kill or capture, tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq. Sucked into Iraq from all over the Arab/ Muslim world. You may have noticed lately that AQI (Al quida in Iraq), has resorted to woman and mentally handicapped person's to strap their bombs to. Must be running out of "noble young men", willing to be suckered for a room full of Virgins.
So Rev'd Sister War IS the answer sometimes, winning a small War or 2 in Iraq and Afganistan, is better than a World War event from Bali to Morocco. West Vs. Islamist extremists. Or worse yet another attack on American soil, further eroding American Freedoms. Bush is not perfect, but so far on the US terrorists attacks front, since 9/11, He is perfect. Coincidence? I think Not! Aren't the AQ soldiers fighting in Iraq??
Here's the story link. Too bad the Main Stream Media will ignore the story until after Barack Obama is sworn in and magically the reports will change to how much progress has been made... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D36B27BC-2AB3-47CF-B1C1-CAB024730C00.htm
So how many more US servicemen and womens lives are willing to expend in Iraq? It breaks my heart to see our soldiers dying for a war that was misguided in the first pace and when there is no apparent goal.
Why are you surprised that a nun would advocate Christ's teachings?
cfsta, I am not a biblical scholar. Perhaps you can share with me the quote where Jesus says "war never settles anything."
Do you so crave an arguement that you bait posters over fundamental messages of the new testament? I presume you have some familiarity with that collection of books? We may take actions that differ from Christ's message of peace, but that doesn't change his message. Conversely one could ask you where you find that Christ says you can settle some things by war? I do not consider myself a "holy roller" but I am amazed you want to argue about a nun advocating a message of peace.
csfta, I am not craving an argument. I am craving enlightenment. So if there is a passage in the bible wherein Jesus says "war never settles anything," then I want to know about it. But if there is no such passage, would you be able to admit as much at this point?
Re your question, "one could ask you where you find that Christ says you can settle some things by war?" I can only say that I did not offer such a biblical argument, so I see no reason to defend an argument that I did not make. Furthermore, I am not arguing with a nun advocating peace. I am arguing with a nun's position that "war never settles anything." Your efforts to twist my arguments reveals much about your flawed thought process.
Sorry Denis, but you have twisted yourslef on this one. The bulk of the new testament is largely about love and peace. If "winning" an argument means we have to have tape of Jesus uttering a precise phrase against war, when his entire earthly life was spent extolling peaceful approaches, what is your point? Must we really begin quoting parables, the beatitudes, admonishing disciples for using violence? Some people truly do believe that nothing good comes from war. Those of us that have been in war sometimes lean in that direction. Again, why would you expect a nun to say anything else?
cfsta, as I said before, I am no biblical scholar and at this point it is obvious that you aren't either. Otherwise you would have offered something, anything to help prove your point. But this is not for me about winning an argument. Again, I am not the one to be making this argument, but I believe the Catholic Church has some well developed doctrine on the notion of just war. Now, if Jesus's message was unequivocally opposed to war as you suggest, then the Catholic Church's teachings would be wrong, and there would be no such thing as just war, correct? But regardless of what Jesus or the church says/said or doesn't say on the subject, it is nonetheless patently obvious that war does indeed settle some things, which is the limited point that I wished to make. But if you want to persist in believing that war never settles anything, be my guest.
This discussion requires neither biblical scholars nor the catholic church, just some knowledge of Christ's life and message. I was under the impression you possessed that knowledge? I think the cliche violence begats more violence is a simple argument to support the notion war never settles anything. I think the catholic church supported the crusades, then later underwent schisms and a reformation because it doesn't necessarily best represent Christ's teachings. Having been to war, noting the immediate affects on people, and the tendency to refight the same wars - this does make it a fair question in my mind as to whether war does settle anything. So I'll "be your guest" and not immediately condemn a nun who is a pacifist. Given you feel war does settle things I take it you, your family, and friends will be volunteering for military service?
csfta, you write: "This discussion requires neither biblical scholars nor the catholic church, just some knowledge of Christ's life and message."
Nonsense. You dismiss 2000 years of Christian tradition and teaching and a church with a billion plus members with only "some knowledge of Christ's life and message." Your arrogance is breathtaking.
I did not condemn a pacifist nun, I disageed with one. Big difference.
And lastly, since you believe that violence just begets more violence, I suppose you will push away the loaded gun and watch your mother or daughter get raped. Your attitude, ignorance, and cowardice in the face of evil is what begets violence.
You dismiss the protestant reformation and then call others arrogant? The catholic church does not have a monopoly on Chrisendom, and to be put in the company of Luther, Knox, etc is seen as a good thing in many circles.
You disagreed with a nun by referring to her position as "nonsense" (or shall we say nunsense?). Certainly not a polite way to disagree, but perhaps shy of condemnation - the hairs have been split.
Having already faced a loaded gun a time or two myself, after you volunteer and give it a try, then tell us if you still feel the same way? My impression is you've got more in common with Michael Dukakis in that regards than I do. If Jesus were to walk among us today we'd have trouble following him wouldn't we?
I am not dissing Protestants cfsta and I wish you would discontinue the practice of pretending that I am offering certain arguments that I am not. Or in other words, stop lying. How have I dissed Protestants? I have not even mentioned Protestants. Are Protestants all pacifists? If they are, please let me know. It would be news to me.
The difference between calling something nonsense and condemning something is greater than splitting hairs in my view. When something makes no sense, like the position that you and the nun are taking, it is by definition nonsense. So it is meant to be an accurate description rather than a condemnation.
I noticed that you dodged the issue about what you would do if you had a loaded gun and were able to shoot the person raping your daughter, mother etc... I understand that because any sane person would use the gun. It would not beget more violence but would probably stop a rapist from raping again, ie begetting less violence. Of course you realize all this but for some reason are taking the nonsensical pacifist position.
And lastly, I agree fully with your last sentence.
You extoll the catholic church as the voice for Christians on the issue of going to war, and when someone points out the catholic church doesn't speak for all Christians you tell them to "stop lying" - not really a constructive or substantial retort.
You seem to have a little bit of a short fuse. "Your arrogance ... your attitude, ignorance, and cowardice ... your efforts to twist ..."
All I've tried to do is point out that based on the new testament a nun or anybody else could fashion an argument against war and for pacifism. Along the way I retorted to one of your assertions by mentioning the catholic church is not the definitive voice for all people on all things having to do with Christian doctrine.
As I have mentioned, my actions in the past have not been of a pacifist nature, and put in future situations of self/national defense I'm not sure I'd be restrained. But having been there and done that, and witnessed both the current human destruction and the tendency of following generations to execute similar actions in the name of revenge or some other unfinished bussiness, yes I believe it is beyond the pale to brand pacifists as non-sensical. You can disagree if you wish, but you cast the premise of this topic in a disrespectful tone from the beginning, "Do any of my readers believe such nonsense ... ?"
To borrow your phrase, "I noticed that you dodged the issue about ... " putting personal action behind your conviction that war does settle some things.
Wrong again csfta. I wrote that the catholic church teaches that there is such a thing as just war. My point was to dispute your claim that "This discussion requires neither biblical scholars nor the catholic church, just some knowledge of Christ's life and message." Now if a cursory knowledge of Christ's life and message is all it takes to dismiss the teachings of the catholic church, then yes, I believe this to be breathtakingly arrogant. By no means should this be taken to mean that other Christian faiths should be dismissed. So when you ascribed that argument to me that I did not make, you were lying. I suppose I should be more charitable now that I think about it. Perhaps you are just being illogical. If I say that the catholic church's teachings can't be dismissed with just some knowledge of Christ's teachings, this says nothing about my views of other Christian denominations. If I say that apples are wonderfully nutritious, would you conclude that I am disrespecting grapes? So you either have a problem grasping your error in logic or you are lying, one of the two. I never suggested that the catholic church speaks for all Christians.
I do have little tolerance or a short fuse for lies cfsta, this is true. And I believe some of your statements are arrogant, such as your apparent willingness to dismiss the Catholic Church's teachings on just war despite having only some knowledge of Christ and his teachings. And I do believe that your attitude toward violence or more accurately, evil, is both ignorant and cowardly, which would beget more violence. I am attempting to be accurate cfsta and not purposefully hurtful. But I think hurtful truths are more helpful than lies in the long run.
In your fourth paragraph, you start to make sense. You weren't a pacifist in your past and your not sure you would be in the future. So why are you so bent on defending pacifism? Certainly war or violence is ugly and should be avoided if at all possible. But there comes a time when evil must be confronted with force. If someone, a nun or whomever, wants to adopt that quasi-suicidal philosophy, they have every right to do so. I think it is non-sensical and so it seems do you if a loved one were being harmed.
I don't mind answering your question about military service. I have not served in the military. I was a lefty in college and for many years thereafter with a mild disdain for our military. What can I say? I was wrong. Why is this information relevant to the issue at hand?
Clearly I don't share your respect for the catholic church as an institution. If that makes me arrogant I guess I'm in good company - between the great schisms, the crusades, no meat on Fridays, this recent run of pedophile priests, and a series of contradictions in-between, using the catholic church as a basis for just war doesn't necessarrily carry the argument. Again, I don't think I'm alone in that appraisal - witness the demise in the catholic church's N American membership.
Telling someone they're stupid or a liar probably isn't the best way of winning them over. I don't have the bible memorized but have attended church enough over the years to have grasped more than the gist of the gospels, and a university saw fit to give me a degree in history that included some history of "the church".
I'm a little amazed you label a combat veteran's attitude cowardly because he disagrees with you. It is just possible your perspective and attitude might change if you had some combat experience.
There are a great many of us that call ourselves Christians, but Christ's message was love and peace and to confront evil other ways. So I don't feel the rest of us "Christians" should be knocking those who echo Christ's teachings.
It does strike that those who see the utility in violence but want others to perform the violence in their name display an attitude of contradiction.
Just to be clear cfsta, I am not proselytizing for the catholic church. I am saying that it is arrogant to dismiss the church's teachings on just war with only a limited knowledge on the subject. Thus far, I have only talked about catholic teaching on the subject, but I don't believe most Christian denominations teach total pacifism as consistent with Christ's message. In other words, if not mistaken, most well developed Christian denominations also have notions about just war. But perhaps you know more about this and would be willing to share.
Some people can't be won over I realize, especially those who believe what suits them instead of what is clearly true. I am referring to your apparent continued belief that I have disrespected Protestant faiths, when I did no such thing and have tried mightily to point that out to you to no avail. Sadly, you are either being illogical or your lying about my point of view. I realize it is easier to refute imaginary bogus arguments than real arguments, but that does not make it right.
I don't have the bible memorized either and I agree that the message is one of peace, but this does not mean that fighting evil has been explicitly forbidden in the bible. And this is why a cursory knowledge of the bible or Catholicism or Lutheranism etc... is insufficient info from which to make the claims that you do.
And I must correct you again when you say "I'm a little amazed you label a combat veteran's attitude cowardly because he disagrees with you." I did not label you as cowardly because you disagreed with me, I labeled you cowardly as I imagined you pushing away a loaded gun while watching a loved one get raped, lest your violence beget more violence. I see you have since backed off from that silly position, to your credit.
There is nothing contradictory in supporting, financially and otherwise, those who fight evil on our behalf. The contradictory are those that bash our military while enjoying the safety and freedoms that they afford. Of course this is my overall attitude and should not be seen as an endorsement of every action taken by our military.
Con servatives like Denis profess to be christians but they are not. Sure they are infected somewhat as are most all folks in ZOG nations. Most all of the destructive propaganda aimed at us is based on a foundation of christ insanity so even most all atheists that claim to hate christianity are still infected with it. They parrot the same slogans about multi-racial nonsense and love for all. We are all supposed to be god's children though the Jews are his favorite. Born again type christians make an effort to follow christian teachings. Even they can't follow a majority of christ insanity teachings or they would be dead in short order. Christianity is the most perverted, destructive, anti-nature ideology that ever existed. It is a perfect religion for your enemies and it was OUR enemies that created it and promoted it to our folk. Born again types at least follow the basics and read the christ insanity bible (the word) on a regular basis and they try and convert others (spread the word) as the christ insanity bible teaches they should. Con servatives like most all folk have never read the bible (cover to cover as an adult). They do not understand some of the basic christian teachings such as those about being passive like Jesus. They confuse Old Testament teachings with New Testament. They talk about an eye for an eye when they want to justify violence though the New Testament makes it clear that for christians much of the Old Testament ways (that were and are still for Jews) are changed. For christians "an eye for an eye" is replaced with "turn the other cheek" and all the good advice from the Old Testament for Jews is changed to the opposite (bad advice) for christians. Anyone that does not understand that christianity is strongly opposed to ALL war and even ALL violence is not really a christian or even making a minimal effort to be one. A christian must be passive always.
Post a Comment