This of course reminds us all how The Decider has presented himself proudly and overtly as a man of faith who uses that faith to guide his Decisions, yet made the Decision on waging pre-emptive war. No matter what talking points or diversions the Righties trot out, they cannot deny this contradiction. When the White House held that infamous press conference in 2003 right before the invasion, when the press was firmly in the President's lap, I remember among the softballs lobbed at Bush was "How has your faith guided you during this time" Hah! What did that mean? Try "How do you reconcile your faith with declaring war and invading a country that has not attacked us?" Or "What do you think your pastor would say to you about this war?" This is a perfect reason why the separation of church and state is best. Its reflects the reality and demands of government, and does not compromise the morality of religion.

The Catholic bishops would best serve this country by working honestly and openly with law enforcement to ensure that priests, bishops, and cardinals who have sexually abused children are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Speaking as a practicing Catholic, I would suggest to the bishops that they tread carefully to maintain a bipartisanship on this issue. There are Catholics -- like all Americans -- with differing views, including many who prefer an honorable solution rather than a retreat or surrender.

The article starts out by trying to mislead the reader: "Responding to a call from 14 Catholic members of Congress...".

What the reporter doesnt' tell you is: that the 14 are all Democrats; that most Catholic members of Congress had no part in this; and that the 14 aren't near a majority of Catholic Democrats in Congress.

A reporter would include these facts. A left-wing propagandist would omit these facts in order to mask this partisan move with a patina of non-partisanship.

Speaking as a practicing Catholic, I would suggest to the bishops that they tread carefully to maintain a bipartisanship on this issue. There are Catholics -- like all Americans -- with differing views, including many who prefer an honorable solution rather than a retreat or surrender.

Posted by: Phoenix | July 23, 2007 5:53 PM

Speaking as another practising Catholic I expect the Bishops to present Roman Catholic doctrine on what constitutes a Just War.

The bishops have not tailored there message on other contetious issues such as abortion and birth control to avoid offending those Catholics who disagree. Why should they on this issue?

When earboy talks about his conversion, and his followers believe he is getting instructions from god ("God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.") the wingnuts feel this is ok. But as soon a few loony lefties start using THEIR religion to oppose the war, all of a sudden the wingnuts try to marginalize them. It's a pretty familiar, lame, and basically, failed tactic.

The same Catholic bishops that backed the Sandanistas in the late 70's.

Speaking as an American, I am always skittish when any group of people lay claim to the interests of other individuals.

I also find it particularly disturbing when unelected "leaders" gain access to the powers-that-be, whether those powers are politicians or members of the media.

The same Catholic bishops that backed the Sandanistas in the late 70's.

As I was pointing out, marginalize them and they don't become a threat to one's ever contracting world.

The same Catholic bishops that backed the Sandanistas in the late 70's.

As I was pointing out, marginalize them and they don't become a threat to one's ever contracting world. And it was Sandinistas, not Sandanistas. If you're gonna be a world affairs expert, learn to address the political parties by their correct name. It gives you a bit of authority, unlike the poster above.

The same Catholic bishops that backed the Sandanistas in the late 70's.

Posted by: Terry | July 23, 2007 9:40 PM

And the same Catholic Bishops that were targeted by the death squads of the right wing government in El Salvador.

http://www.catholicherald.com/royal/royal8.htm

Terry,

Who's the Nicaraguan president?

Oh, yeah, that ol' Sandinista, Daniel Ortega Saavedra.

Looks like the bishops knew a thing or two, doesn't it?

Bud - totally irrelavent.

Tony, same bishops and church that was also tortured under ortega if they didn't play ball.

Umm, so now your saying that their support for Ortega was coerced by torture?

But you support the use of torture right, Terry? So you have no problem with Ortega actions.

Nice try. I guess its the whole dictator-communism thing I disagree with. I know we differ on that issue.

Yes, Terry I know. You much prefer the Dictator Military Junta form of government.

I guess you like the torture of the left as long as supports socialists view.

Terry-

I have never supported torture in any way. I have made definitive statements that torture is always and in ever case wrong. YOU are the one who supports torture by friend, not me.It's your arguements that make the torturers, of all political stripes, smile. You're right next to Ortega in the torture chamber giving him a big "Atta Boy!"

Then I guess your economic policies would be lumped right in with dictators Ortega, Castro, Stalin, ...

Give 'em a big atta boy.

Yeah Terry, supporting a minimum wage makes me a real Stalinist doesn't it?

Let's examine your preferences...torture...eroding civil liberties for security...military spending above all other spending..international conquest and occupation...hmmm....Terry, was the goose step hard to learn?

Torture - depends on your definition. Send the detainee to bed w/o his teddy bear is torture. I don't think they should get 3 hots and a cot. We need information from these detainees, we need them to feel uncomfortable

Eroding civil liberties for security - how so? Would having possession of FBI files be a violation of invading someone's civil liberties? How about wiretapping political enemies?

Military spending s/b done before all other spending - it is the primary function of the federal gov't. Not making sure that the local art museum gets a million dollar grant.

International conquest and occupation? Are you referring to the December, 1998 invasion of Iraq? How about the troops into Kosovo? We should bring those troops that Truman put in Korea home.

By the way, The Nazis were more of a left leaning:

National Socialist German Workers' Party

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state.

Terry, you really need to read more if you think the Nazi movement was left leaning in any way shape or form.

Nice try backing away from your full bore support for torture.

"If the situation warranted, the baseball bat, electrodes, etc.. would all be considered as data extractors of choice. If I had someone that had knowledge of the harm to my family. Yes I would use that force that I would deem necessary to extract that data."

Posted by: Terry | July 13, 2007 9:00 AM

Doesn't sound like sending to bed without their Teddy Bear to me. Sounds more like the Gestapo.

International conquest and occupation? Are you referring to the December, 1998 invasion of Iraq? How about the troops into Kosovo? We should bring those troops that Truman put in Korea home."

Did we conquer and occupy Iraq in 1998? no.

Did we conquer and occupy Kosovo? No.

Truman and Korea - The Government of South Korea invited the United States to help them fight an invasion by another power. Not at all similar to Iraq.

Nice try, Mein Herr.

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state."

Yep that sounds pretty much like you. Willing to surrender all personal liberties, and the interests of all groups in society, in order to strengthen the security of the state.

To get information from Mohammed Atta on 9-10-01, I would have beat him until he was on the brink of visualizing 72 virgins, you would have read him a bedtime story.

We did invade Iraq in December, 1998

We did invade in Kosovo,

We still occupy Korea. What was the clear and present danger to the US of North Korea in 1950?

We are still in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi gov't.

Nice try Joe Stalin.

I don't know about you Tony, but I haven't surrendered any personal liberties at all in teh past 6 years.

"....considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state." - Sounds like your economic policies - go read John Edwards today.

Good reading Adolph.

"To get information from Mohammed Atta on 9-10-01, I would have beat him until he was on the brink of visualizing 72 virgins, you would have read him a bedtime story."

So you're OK with Gestapo tactics. Thanks for confirming that.

"Conquer and occupy" is different than "invade". Try to keep up.

"We still occupy Korea. What was the clear and present danger to the US of North Korea in 1950?"

Assisting states in defeating outside agressors is in the interests of all nations. That's why I supported the first Gulf war. Invading nations which pose no threat, creating the perfect conditions for a civil war, and then participating in that civil war, serve the interest of no nation.

"I don't know about you Tony, but I haven't surrendered any personal liberties at all in teh past 6 years."

That's what many Germans said. They weren't Jews, so why should it bother them, right? American citizens have been held without charges in violation of Habeus Corpus rights. American citizens have been wiretapped without judicial warrant in violation of their 4th amendment rights. The Department of the Army had the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) under surveillence. http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/1013-11.htm But hey, they're not you (probably, but who really knows) so it doesn't matter in your incredibly blinkered world view.

"....considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state." - Sounds like your economic policies - go read John Edwards today."

Nope, you have it exactly backwards. I believe the State exists to serve the individual and societal interests. Individual interests like getting a wage that can support minimal subsistance. Societal interests like a healthy population.

My tactics might have saved 3,000 lives, your "three hots and a cot" method wouldn't have had a chance.

Would those alledged aforementioned liberties being taken by our gov't now be as serious as the White House having 800 FBI files or having the AG conductiong a wiretap on the leading civil rights leader of our time?

Go read Executive Order 12949.

So you have no problem with our invasion of Iraq in December, 1988? Can you remind me of why we invaded Iraq in Dec, 1998?

"I believe the State exists to serve the individual and societal interests" - Just how does the state do that in your world? Its by confiscating the property of some individuals and giving it to other individuals.

Wage that can support minimal subsitance - the individual can do that - the vast majority of us do.

Healthy population - most of us can provide for that. If the gov't provided that, to what extreme will they be able to assure a healthy population - abolish junk food - at least tax it. Talk about an invasion of privacy.

When you get out from under mom and dad's roof and see that the real world is more than a MTV show, let me know.