Prayer Requests:
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly. Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I forgot to post this last week so I will post it now. As one who believes in a concept known as the communion of saints I do believe that prayer for those who have passed on can be beneficial for them much as prayer for those who are on earth can be.
With that in mind, pray please for Gloria Strauss and her family and help them out in other ways too however you can.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Points to Ponder:
War is not the answer to everything, but in the recent past it has been the answer to slavery, German imperialism in 1914, fascism (1922-1945), and communism at various spots around the world until in 1989 -checkmated and wildly overspending on arms- the beast withered from within and gave up the ghost. [Michael Novak]
War is not the answer to everything, but in the recent past it has been the answer to slavery, German imperialism in 1914, fascism (1922-1945), and communism at various spots around the world until in 1989 -checkmated and wildly overspending on arms- the beast withered from within and gave up the ghost. [Michael Novak]
Monday, May 07, 2007
On the "Unsinkable Cork":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Those who are familiar with Bill Cork and an email address/website he once had will know what I mean by the title of this posting. Anyway, I start this post off by noting a recent circumstance that when it was brought to my attention was quite a shock to see. Without further ado:
The Journey Home (Bill Cork)
Much as with Rod Dreher's situation, I predict a storm of people will try to impute to Bill the worst of motives. I repeat now what I said after observing this happen with RodDreher earlier this year then end this with some expository musings on Bill personally and his situation. First though, the noted rehash of my statement pertaining to RodDreher:
I had intended to comment on this thread some time back but circumstances and time constraints made me postpone it until now. I noticed that some of Rod's feedback was of the predictable nasty sort and others tried to play the "let us throw apologetics arguments at Rod" approach which at this point is not going to work. I will simply note that Rod's approach to the historical record is selective and arbitrary on the whole papal issue and if he was consistent in his rationale, it would undermine his current position in very significant ways. That is all I will say about it since no argument has a chance of persuading Rod while he is in the "honeymoon phase" of his religious transition. I therefore wish him the best and only ask that he remain open to reassessing his foundational presuppositions from time to time. (Or as Benjamin Franklin liked to say "question his own infallibility.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 8, 2007)]
The same situation I see as impacting the movement taken by Bill Cork but obviously Dreher has the glorious tradition of Orthodoxy he retreated towards. Bill by contrast went with what I must call a cult and I say that as someone who had my own affiliation with two different cults of my own in my lifetime. The first as some might be aware was the Society of St. Pius X schismatic "Catholic" movement but the second was the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The latter was not a long affiliation but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory{1} and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). But the purpose here is not to delve into that -I merely note it at the outset so that readers can get a grasp of how I am going to approach this posting to some extent.
To give a bit of history on my familiarity with Bill Cork (to the extent there was a familiarity), I remember Bill as someone who was heavily involved in a large effort against a radical fringe extremist "apologist" five years ago. That was in fact how I became familiar with him and while there were many involved in that endeavour, Bill was among the most tenacious. For that I had a measure of respect for him. Bill was also ahead of the curve on the war in Iraq -heck I remember Bill beating the drums for that when I was still sorting out my own position{2} before taking a definitive stand. It took me longer than Bill but I also set forth a cement-like position that has not wavered and will not. By contrast, I was not comfortable with the position as Bill and not a few other Catholics set it forth -viewing it as being too grounded on tenuous and less definite evidences and less on the more solid and irrefutable factors involved. This had its predictable effect when Bill and several others later did a complete 180 when the foundation they built their houses of argument on washed out and left them with nothing on which to stand.
Bill was also involved in a kind of opposition to Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and I disagreed with him on this matter in late 2003 by taking a stand on principles which were consistent. I saw at that point and in some later situations a number of things that bothered me about some of Bill's statements but I am never one to rush in on these matters for a variety of reasons. Most significant perhaps is that people need the opportunity to ponder issues and this approach rarely is in a straight line for anyone. Instead, the pondering (note I do not say "thinking"{3}) by its nature involves many facets of the human person and for that reason there will be a waxing and waning, a pulling one way and then another depending on the particular circumstances a given person faces.
The spiritual life (of which I would never be presumptive to say I am anything akin to an expert on) has its ebbs and flows like the tide on a beach. And while I can say that I sensed some of that in Bill's work when I actually looked at it, this was something that happened with less and less frequency over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever. Admittedly my own conscious attempt to distance myself from the St. Blogs contingent -a move that happened in stages{4} played a part in that. But that point aside, there were indicators that something was afoot with Bill even if I could not connect all the dots as to what eventually happened.{5} I will go over some of this now since this subject is one that many will probably make uncharitable swipes at Bill on. I hope nonetheless that he will review what I am going to say in the proper spirit of authentic dialogue as I have enunciated it over the years.{6}
As I said already, there were small signs in retrospect that Bill was having a hard time of sorts finding a consistent voice -the first of which was that he kept renaming his weblog. I cannot recall how many Latin names he went with offhand -I remember Pro Deo et Patria at one point, Ut Unum Sint at another point. Then he used Built on a Rock -the latter was not in Latin but one need not have a Latin name for their blog.It was a fashionable sort of thing for Catholics of the "St. Blogs" contingent to give their blogs a Latin name and that was themotivation I took for choosing the name I did initially. Over time, I have come to see a greater depth to the choice of weblog name I made but one can say that a name denotes to some extent an identity. That Bill kept changing his weblog name to me looked as if he was trying to find an identity of sorts. It might sound overly-simplistic to put it that way but that is how I see it. Here is a more complex approach to the same subject and I will use the analogy of the Supreme Court to make.
After recently completing a very good book on the Supreme Court called Supreme Conflict which goes into not only the selection but also the psychology of the court, I see a mirror in Bill with Justice Anthony Kennedy and it gets back to what I said earlier about Bill struggling to find an identity. The book well outlines how this was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether.
Basically, the identity issue was one clue to me along with his war flip flop{7} and the handling of the whole Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ situation already noted above. To those who would be reading up to this point and wonder why I would bother with the subject in question, I remind them of the subtitle of this weblog in part{8} but also a reason is because Bill was to some extent a minor celebrity of sorts in certain circles in which we both ran in to the extent one can "run" in cyberspace.
I say he was a "minor celebrity" because he was one of those who were in the "Catholic convert" stories -if memory serves his story was in the Surprised by Truth series somewhere.{9} In making this recent decision, Bill did decide to resign his position with the Galveston archdioceses which was certainly a proper thing to do and I am sure Bill will seek to make a more detailed accounting of certain factors motivating his decision over time. This pattern is the natural course of things for a convert to a particular outlook or a revert to a previous outlook to do. (I expect it in other words and would be surprised if he did not actually do this at some point.) In the above thread he makes the following statement which I want to briefly focus on before ending this thread of musings:
I’ve been laying out theological and ecclesial issues over the past two months that were contributing factors to my loss of trust in the authority of Rome and the Catholic Magisterium.
If what I noted above does not give a hint already, I will spell it out here more bluntly: I never thought Bill Cork had a significant grasp of matters theological. Bill would probably expect me to say that but now the cat is out of the bag. It is not unique to Bill but frankly, most Catholics do not and I do not see the apologetics oligarchy as being of much assistance in this area at all. They are such a predictable lot that if they have not done it already I will tell you what many of them will do: they will bombard Bill either with shrieks of how he is "hell bound" for his "apostasy" or they will try to respond to whatever he posits as his reasons or difficulties with apologetics arguments. Those sorts love to argue after all (seemingly for the sake of arguing at times) and I am not saying they are wrong per se in what they will say.{10} They are wrong though to assume it will have an effect on Bill at this stage.
Remember, a change in one's viewpoint is not an instant situation but generally takes a good period of time. There are also a variety of factors involved and not all of them are intellectual ones. Indeed, some of them are of a more personal nature{11} and this is seldom recognized. They can be personal, they can even be financial or whatever but I am not about to engage in assuming nefarious reasons for Bill's recent about face. Indeed, having not seen enough of his stuff in recent years,{12} I am hardly in a position to take a definite statement on it. For this reason, I will only presume that Bill was not adequately formed theologically and I can probably predict some of the issues where there were problems.
Among the biggest of the problems is what happens with those who do not fully understand what is and is not magisterial; namely, what is and is not a matter of required assent in other words and what is not. This is something that apologists in recent years have shown a fairly general consensus on with regards to not understanding these distinctions all that well. Bill was not an apologist but he was involved with church bureaucracy to a certain extent. I also believe this put him in a position where he may have felt he had to defend certain bureaucratic statements which he may well have not been comfortable with. Two in particular come to mind which I will mention briefly in a footnote.{13}
Now admittedly, some of these musings are based on incomplete information and supplemented with intuition. As I noted already, I did not read Bill's weblog much in recent years{14} -certainly not enough to fill in all the blanks. But frankly, even if I had, I would not have seen this one coming. A move to Orthodoxy, sure I could see that to some extent if the problem is the authority issue. Heck, even a move to a kind of Anglo-Catholic view or (stretching it a bit) a form of high church Lutheranism perhaps as Bill was a Lutheran pastor at one point. But a return to Seventh Day Adventism??? No my friends, I would not have seen this one coming for a variety of reasons. And when you consider that Bill is being offered a pastors position at a parish coupled with some of what I have heard through the grapevine{15}, it does lend one to wonder a bit but that is all I will say on those matters. Bill will get a lot of abuse on this from other people -not from me.
I want to note in closing, if it is not obvious in what is noted above that I wish Bill Cork the best and I only ask him to do what I would ask anyone to do: from time to time reappraise their foundational presuppositions. This time, I would request of him to try and fill in those areas where he was lacking before even if only to better understand these issues from an ecumenical context to better serve authentic dialogue with Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists. In a nutshell Bill, be open once again to "questioning a little of your own infallibility" (cf. Benjamin Franklin), that is all I would ask of you, me, or indeed of anyone else.
Notes:
{1} That is not to say that I solved every previous puzzle involved in this mind you. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular weltanschauung, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves of their own volition without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-theorist sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting them anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past eleven odd years.
{2} Bill Cork goes over his recent about-face on the war issue here. I have to admit that these so-called "war protesters" have moved me towards a more hawkish stance myself then even the one I outlined here. I anticipated in that entry the war protesting angle and my view has not changed about protesters. If Bush was handling this as Johnson handled Vietnam, then to some extent I could grant the protesters some leeway. But in my gut I know this is simply liberal idiots trying to play politics. After all, where were they when Clinton was bombing Kosovo???...
If we do go to war and these people try to gum up the machinery, they should be treated the same way a soldier would be treated if he tried to abandon his unit in battle. That is all I will say on the matter at this time because I am starting to get livid thinking about these clowns and that is not a good mindset to be in for blogging. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2003)]
{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. Bill certainly did such a reassessment himself as of late and while I do not agree with where it took him, that he did the reassessment certainly earns a measure of respect from me. I only ask of him the same thing I did of Rod Dreher and it is this: remain open to a future reassessment and "doubting your infallibility" again at some point.
{4} There are hints in this in the weblog archives starting in late 2003. The process was a gradual one picking up steam through a series of events and circumstances coupled with realizations about the nature of that group. Eventually, it hit critical mass and compelled me to make my own formal exodus from them as a collective last year for reasons I outlined in no small detail HERE.
{5} And I obviously did not as this news came as a surprise to me. (Though in my own defense, I had not read enough of a cross-section of Bill's work in recent years to likely see such a shift anyway even if it manifested itself in his work which -since he deleted it all- I do not know if it was there all along or not.)
{6} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
{7} I mean no disrespect to you in phrasing it this way Bill but I would be less than honest if I did not tell you how I viewed that matter.
{8} My musings on ...well...basically whatever I want to muse on...[Subtitle of this weblog from virtually (if not actually) day one]
{9} I am really going off of memory here because I have not read any of those books and have relied for my information of who was in them from second and third hand sources -not the most reliable of ways to get information sometimes but I note it here nonetheless.
{10} Some of them are actually quite good at what they do -either in general or on particular subjects.
{11}I bring up the fact that Bill's entire family is Seventh Day Adventist as a huge factor here far and above any intellectual reason he may give. Those Catholics who seize on this idea and run with it I only hope are not among the same crowd who took issue with me making the exact same argument when I challenged in no small fashion a position espoused by Karl Keating a couple years ago along these same lines. I am only being consistent here, not playing the "it is okay to criticize apostate Bill this way but not Supreme Maximum Leader Karl" hypocritical bullshit that so often permeates those whose vision is so badly impaired with fallacious provincialism that they cannot see the forest for the trees. But I digress.
{12} See footnote five.
{13} The first is the 2002 USCCB subcommittee text on Jewish-Christian relations which was not well formulated and lent itself to being badly misinterpreted as indeed most people did. The second (I suspect but I have nothing to go on here but intuition with the latter one) is the USCCB's campaign in 2005 to abolish the death penalty in the United States. I cannot recall offhand Bill's position on the death penalty but I can only imagine that if he did not share the view of the USCCB on the matter (as I indeed do not) that he could have a serious problem with the manner in which they have gone about this issue.
{14} Which was not that often over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever.
{15} I have heard through the grapevine a number of things that I do not believe would be helpful to note here. It remains my view that the family situation as a Catholic in a sea of Seventh Day Adventists was the most significant factor. It is natural to not want to rock the boat on these matters and my guess is that is a more significant factor than most of the others that could be mentioned.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Those who are familiar with Bill Cork and an email address/website he once had will know what I mean by the title of this posting. Anyway, I start this post off by noting a recent circumstance that when it was brought to my attention was quite a shock to see. Without further ado:
The Journey Home (Bill Cork)
Much as with Rod Dreher's situation, I predict a storm of people will try to impute to Bill the worst of motives. I repeat now what I said after observing this happen with RodDreher earlier this year then end this with some expository musings on Bill personally and his situation. First though, the noted rehash of my statement pertaining to RodDreher:
I had intended to comment on this thread some time back but circumstances and time constraints made me postpone it until now. I noticed that some of Rod's feedback was of the predictable nasty sort and others tried to play the "let us throw apologetics arguments at Rod" approach which at this point is not going to work. I will simply note that Rod's approach to the historical record is selective and arbitrary on the whole papal issue and if he was consistent in his rationale, it would undermine his current position in very significant ways. That is all I will say about it since no argument has a chance of persuading Rod while he is in the "honeymoon phase" of his religious transition. I therefore wish him the best and only ask that he remain open to reassessing his foundational presuppositions from time to time. (Or as Benjamin Franklin liked to say "question his own infallibility.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 8, 2007)]
The same situation I see as impacting the movement taken by Bill Cork but obviously Dreher has the glorious tradition of Orthodoxy he retreated towards. Bill by contrast went with what I must call a cult and I say that as someone who had my own affiliation with two different cults of my own in my lifetime. The first as some might be aware was the Society of St. Pius X schismatic "Catholic" movement but the second was the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The latter was not a long affiliation but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory{1} and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). But the purpose here is not to delve into that -I merely note it at the outset so that readers can get a grasp of how I am going to approach this posting to some extent.
To give a bit of history on my familiarity with Bill Cork (to the extent there was a familiarity), I remember Bill as someone who was heavily involved in a large effort against a radical fringe extremist "apologist" five years ago. That was in fact how I became familiar with him and while there were many involved in that endeavour, Bill was among the most tenacious. For that I had a measure of respect for him. Bill was also ahead of the curve on the war in Iraq -heck I remember Bill beating the drums for that when I was still sorting out my own position{2} before taking a definitive stand. It took me longer than Bill but I also set forth a cement-like position that has not wavered and will not. By contrast, I was not comfortable with the position as Bill and not a few other Catholics set it forth -viewing it as being too grounded on tenuous and less definite evidences and less on the more solid and irrefutable factors involved. This had its predictable effect when Bill and several others later did a complete 180 when the foundation they built their houses of argument on washed out and left them with nothing on which to stand.
Bill was also involved in a kind of opposition to Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and I disagreed with him on this matter in late 2003 by taking a stand on principles which were consistent. I saw at that point and in some later situations a number of things that bothered me about some of Bill's statements but I am never one to rush in on these matters for a variety of reasons. Most significant perhaps is that people need the opportunity to ponder issues and this approach rarely is in a straight line for anyone. Instead, the pondering (note I do not say "thinking"{3}) by its nature involves many facets of the human person and for that reason there will be a waxing and waning, a pulling one way and then another depending on the particular circumstances a given person faces.
The spiritual life (of which I would never be presumptive to say I am anything akin to an expert on) has its ebbs and flows like the tide on a beach. And while I can say that I sensed some of that in Bill's work when I actually looked at it, this was something that happened with less and less frequency over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever. Admittedly my own conscious attempt to distance myself from the St. Blogs contingent -a move that happened in stages{4} played a part in that. But that point aside, there were indicators that something was afoot with Bill even if I could not connect all the dots as to what eventually happened.{5} I will go over some of this now since this subject is one that many will probably make uncharitable swipes at Bill on. I hope nonetheless that he will review what I am going to say in the proper spirit of authentic dialogue as I have enunciated it over the years.{6}
As I said already, there were small signs in retrospect that Bill was having a hard time of sorts finding a consistent voice -the first of which was that he kept renaming his weblog. I cannot recall how many Latin names he went with offhand -I remember Pro Deo et Patria at one point, Ut Unum Sint at another point. Then he used Built on a Rock -the latter was not in Latin but one need not have a Latin name for their blog.It was a fashionable sort of thing for Catholics of the "St. Blogs" contingent to give their blogs a Latin name and that was themotivation I took for choosing the name I did initially. Over time, I have come to see a greater depth to the choice of weblog name I made but one can say that a name denotes to some extent an identity. That Bill kept changing his weblog name to me looked as if he was trying to find an identity of sorts. It might sound overly-simplistic to put it that way but that is how I see it. Here is a more complex approach to the same subject and I will use the analogy of the Supreme Court to make.
After recently completing a very good book on the Supreme Court called Supreme Conflict which goes into not only the selection but also the psychology of the court, I see a mirror in Bill with Justice Anthony Kennedy and it gets back to what I said earlier about Bill struggling to find an identity. The book well outlines how this was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether.
Basically, the identity issue was one clue to me along with his war flip flop{7} and the handling of the whole Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ situation already noted above. To those who would be reading up to this point and wonder why I would bother with the subject in question, I remind them of the subtitle of this weblog in part{8} but also a reason is because Bill was to some extent a minor celebrity of sorts in certain circles in which we both ran in to the extent one can "run" in cyberspace.
I say he was a "minor celebrity" because he was one of those who were in the "Catholic convert" stories -if memory serves his story was in the Surprised by Truth series somewhere.{9} In making this recent decision, Bill did decide to resign his position with the Galveston archdioceses which was certainly a proper thing to do and I am sure Bill will seek to make a more detailed accounting of certain factors motivating his decision over time. This pattern is the natural course of things for a convert to a particular outlook or a revert to a previous outlook to do. (I expect it in other words and would be surprised if he did not actually do this at some point.) In the above thread he makes the following statement which I want to briefly focus on before ending this thread of musings:
I’ve been laying out theological and ecclesial issues over the past two months that were contributing factors to my loss of trust in the authority of Rome and the Catholic Magisterium.
If what I noted above does not give a hint already, I will spell it out here more bluntly: I never thought Bill Cork had a significant grasp of matters theological. Bill would probably expect me to say that but now the cat is out of the bag. It is not unique to Bill but frankly, most Catholics do not and I do not see the apologetics oligarchy as being of much assistance in this area at all. They are such a predictable lot that if they have not done it already I will tell you what many of them will do: they will bombard Bill either with shrieks of how he is "hell bound" for his "apostasy" or they will try to respond to whatever he posits as his reasons or difficulties with apologetics arguments. Those sorts love to argue after all (seemingly for the sake of arguing at times) and I am not saying they are wrong per se in what they will say.{10} They are wrong though to assume it will have an effect on Bill at this stage.
Remember, a change in one's viewpoint is not an instant situation but generally takes a good period of time. There are also a variety of factors involved and not all of them are intellectual ones. Indeed, some of them are of a more personal nature{11} and this is seldom recognized. They can be personal, they can even be financial or whatever but I am not about to engage in assuming nefarious reasons for Bill's recent about face. Indeed, having not seen enough of his stuff in recent years,{12} I am hardly in a position to take a definite statement on it. For this reason, I will only presume that Bill was not adequately formed theologically and I can probably predict some of the issues where there were problems.
Among the biggest of the problems is what happens with those who do not fully understand what is and is not magisterial; namely, what is and is not a matter of required assent in other words and what is not. This is something that apologists in recent years have shown a fairly general consensus on with regards to not understanding these distinctions all that well. Bill was not an apologist but he was involved with church bureaucracy to a certain extent. I also believe this put him in a position where he may have felt he had to defend certain bureaucratic statements which he may well have not been comfortable with. Two in particular come to mind which I will mention briefly in a footnote.{13}
Now admittedly, some of these musings are based on incomplete information and supplemented with intuition. As I noted already, I did not read Bill's weblog much in recent years{14} -certainly not enough to fill in all the blanks. But frankly, even if I had, I would not have seen this one coming. A move to Orthodoxy, sure I could see that to some extent if the problem is the authority issue. Heck, even a move to a kind of Anglo-Catholic view or (stretching it a bit) a form of high church Lutheranism perhaps as Bill was a Lutheran pastor at one point. But a return to Seventh Day Adventism??? No my friends, I would not have seen this one coming for a variety of reasons. And when you consider that Bill is being offered a pastors position at a parish coupled with some of what I have heard through the grapevine{15}, it does lend one to wonder a bit but that is all I will say on those matters. Bill will get a lot of abuse on this from other people -not from me.
I want to note in closing, if it is not obvious in what is noted above that I wish Bill Cork the best and I only ask him to do what I would ask anyone to do: from time to time reappraise their foundational presuppositions. This time, I would request of him to try and fill in those areas where he was lacking before even if only to better understand these issues from an ecumenical context to better serve authentic dialogue with Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists. In a nutshell Bill, be open once again to "questioning a little of your own infallibility" (cf. Benjamin Franklin), that is all I would ask of you, me, or indeed of anyone else.
Notes:
{1} That is not to say that I solved every previous puzzle involved in this mind you. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular weltanschauung, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves of their own volition without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-theorist sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting them anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past eleven odd years.
{2} Bill Cork goes over his recent about-face on the war issue here. I have to admit that these so-called "war protesters" have moved me towards a more hawkish stance myself then even the one I outlined here. I anticipated in that entry the war protesting angle and my view has not changed about protesters. If Bush was handling this as Johnson handled Vietnam, then to some extent I could grant the protesters some leeway. But in my gut I know this is simply liberal idiots trying to play politics. After all, where were they when Clinton was bombing Kosovo???...
If we do go to war and these people try to gum up the machinery, they should be treated the same way a soldier would be treated if he tried to abandon his unit in battle. That is all I will say on the matter at this time because I am starting to get livid thinking about these clowns and that is not a good mindset to be in for blogging. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2003)]
{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. Bill certainly did such a reassessment himself as of late and while I do not agree with where it took him, that he did the reassessment certainly earns a measure of respect from me. I only ask of him the same thing I did of Rod Dreher and it is this: remain open to a future reassessment and "doubting your infallibility" again at some point.
{4} There are hints in this in the weblog archives starting in late 2003. The process was a gradual one picking up steam through a series of events and circumstances coupled with realizations about the nature of that group. Eventually, it hit critical mass and compelled me to make my own formal exodus from them as a collective last year for reasons I outlined in no small detail HERE.
{5} And I obviously did not as this news came as a surprise to me. (Though in my own defense, I had not read enough of a cross-section of Bill's work in recent years to likely see such a shift anyway even if it manifested itself in his work which -since he deleted it all- I do not know if it was there all along or not.)
{6} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)
{7} I mean no disrespect to you in phrasing it this way Bill but I would be less than honest if I did not tell you how I viewed that matter.
{8} My musings on ...well...basically whatever I want to muse on...[Subtitle of this weblog from virtually (if not actually) day one]
{9} I am really going off of memory here because I have not read any of those books and have relied for my information of who was in them from second and third hand sources -not the most reliable of ways to get information sometimes but I note it here nonetheless.
{10} Some of them are actually quite good at what they do -either in general or on particular subjects.
{11}I bring up the fact that Bill's entire family is Seventh Day Adventist as a huge factor here far and above any intellectual reason he may give. Those Catholics who seize on this idea and run with it I only hope are not among the same crowd who took issue with me making the exact same argument when I challenged in no small fashion a position espoused by Karl Keating a couple years ago along these same lines. I am only being consistent here, not playing the "it is okay to criticize apostate Bill this way but not Supreme Maximum Leader Karl" hypocritical bullshit that so often permeates those whose vision is so badly impaired with fallacious provincialism that they cannot see the forest for the trees. But I digress.
{12} See footnote five.
{13} The first is the 2002 USCCB subcommittee text on Jewish-Christian relations which was not well formulated and lent itself to being badly misinterpreted as indeed most people did. The second (I suspect but I have nothing to go on here but intuition with the latter one) is the USCCB's campaign in 2005 to abolish the death penalty in the United States. I cannot recall offhand Bill's position on the death penalty but I can only imagine that if he did not share the view of the USCCB on the matter (as I indeed do not) that he could have a serious problem with the manner in which they have gone about this issue.
{14} Which was not that often over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever.
{15} I have heard through the grapevine a number of things that I do not believe would be helpful to note here. It remains my view that the family situation as a Catholic in a sea of Seventh Day Adventists was the most significant factor. It is natural to not want to rock the boat on these matters and my guess is that is a more significant factor than most of the others that could be mentioned.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
For those who noticed a lighter gray colour to the weblog's layout, worry not, your monitor does not need an adjustment. Under the advice of Chris Blosser who offered me an "asthetic critique" of my weblog, I decided to implement a suggestion from him to go with a slightly lighter gray colour to make some of the lighter fonts used on occasion easier to read. I took the suggestion a step further and made all gray parts of the template lighter for a greater uniformity as well but the end result is a more aesthetically pleasing appearance and for that Chris deserves the credit.
In evenings when I have a bit of time, I am reading a military history of the United States which is in some respects quite iconoclastic. Among the theses{1} that the author seeks to sustain include the following ones (taken from the jacket of the book itself):
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
On Sedition and What It Consists Of:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -within a few days in about thirty three hours from when this post is published. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 18, 2003)]
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Prayer Requests:
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
Guest Editorial Revisiting Catholic Apologetics and Cult-Style Deadagenting Tactics in the Twilight Zone:
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings:
I want to touch on two points briefly so here goes...
--Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.{1} I should have that project done by summertime which means that the first weblog update of 2007 will not take place for quite a while. As it is, most of the posts for the past two years have at least one subject tag on them as of this writing -many of them more than one tag in fact. And there are some categories I have not even gotten to which will have a number of posts put into them when I get around to adding those categories. Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being.{2}
--I have not commented on the Virginia Tech incident because I did not find myself in the mood to. All I will say on it in passing is that anyone who used this tragedy to try and score cheap political points is a disgrace. I have in mind those who are going to try and shill for "gun control" as if somehow the criminal has no choice in the matter if not for the gun making him commit the crime. I suppose (to paraphrase Larry the cable Guy) I should blame my pens and pencils for causing me to misspell words. The latter is about as logical as those who blame guns for crime.
Notes:
{1} Such as certain words to search for in the archives on various subjects, certain phrases, etc.
{2} Right now there is twenty-nine of them and I have at least four more in mind at the moment which will be included as well -and will probably incorporate more than that when it is all said and done.
I want to touch on two points briefly so here goes...
--Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.{1} I should have that project done by summertime which means that the first weblog update of 2007 will not take place for quite a while. As it is, most of the posts for the past two years have at least one subject tag on them as of this writing -many of them more than one tag in fact. And there are some categories I have not even gotten to which will have a number of posts put into them when I get around to adding those categories. Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being.{2}
--I have not commented on the Virginia Tech incident because I did not find myself in the mood to. All I will say on it in passing is that anyone who used this tragedy to try and score cheap political points is a disgrace. I have in mind those who are going to try and shill for "gun control" as if somehow the criminal has no choice in the matter if not for the gun making him commit the crime. I suppose (to paraphrase Larry the cable Guy) I should blame my pens and pencils for causing me to misspell words. The latter is about as logical as those who blame guns for crime.
Notes:
{1} Such as certain words to search for in the archives on various subjects, certain phrases, etc.
{2} Right now there is twenty-nine of them and I have at least four more in mind at the moment which will be included as well -and will probably incorporate more than that when it is all said and done.
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept.
(On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited)
[Prefatory Note: This text was primarily thrown together about ten days ago and slightly expanded (and formatted into third person tense) for the present posting. -ISM]
It is really irritating when an experienced apologist such as Mark Shea makes the kinds of mistakes he does and on such a regular basis. We at Rerum Novarum will dispatch with these inanities briefly and in the process remind readers why a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Furthermore, Mark utilizes a classic argumentation fallacy{1} to try and confuse matters like an old parlour magician. Unfortunately for him, your host is not one to fall for such matters and after calling him on the matter, Mark responded as follows (his words in appropriately dark yellow font).
Shawn:
I was unaware that when a Council teaches that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" it is not the Church's teaching. I learn something new every day.
Mark of course makes a lot of presumptions in how he applies that passage. Furthermore, he also does not bother considering what Gaudium et Spes says about the theological qualifications of its own text.{2} If he did, he would not make such absurd statements.
I'm aware of the common game of "Simon says" which apologists for nuking civilians enjoy playing. The rules of the game are "If the Pope does not say "We declare, say, pronounce, and define that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of butchery and they should be pilgrimage sites where men can contemplate the self-destruction of mankind" why then it's just a "sneeze" and we can completely ignore them.
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment{3}, Mark makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, Mark does the same here with his own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation{4} knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon. And whether Mark or anyone else likes it, there are no magisterial condemnations of the atomic bombings. Period, end of discussion, the rest is commentary. But then again, if Mark took time to look into these matters before opening his mouth on matters of which he knows so little, he would know this.
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not "minimalist" however much Mark may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not.
Only the absolute bare minimum daily adult requirement of teaching from the Church's shepherds need be heeded. Any attempt to pay attention to what they say beyond this is ultra-montanism.
Any attempt to ascribe to magisterial status things which are not makes Mark no different in principle than those nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines who ascribed infallibility to every sneeze of Pope Pius IX. Except in Mark's case it is every statement is a defacto magisterial judgment. Theology is not that simple however much Mark may wish it was.
I'm likewise familiar with the fact that you, like so many Torture Apologists,
Maybe we should start calling Mark an Al Queda Apologist. It would be far more accurate than applying Markmoud AhmadinaShea's label to your host. (Gee, namecalling is fun is it not???)
still labor under the impression that I never defined torture when, in fact, I defined it repeatedly, just never to the satisfaction of those who wanted to remain confused.
Mark referred to dictionary definitions which themselves are not precise. Your host asked him numerous times in private "what is torture Mark" and he were as silent as a whore in church in response.
I also pointed out that the teaching (not the "sneeze") of the Church does not stop with "Don't torture".
Again, if Mark does not define the term before he uses it, the present writer has no reason to take anything he says on the matter seriously. Nor for that matter does anyone else.
It also says that prisoners are to be treated humanely--not merely "not exactly precisely technically tortured".
We reprise anew what was asked of Mark in private and to which he never responded:
--Would any and all attempts to coerce someone to reveal information they may not want to reveal when dealing with captured prisoners of war in a time of war be categorized as "torture"???
The question should be answered by Mark if he wants anything he says on these matters to be given any review whatsoever.
All this seems to elude you as it eludes others, which is why I continue to think you major in minors, Shawn.
Again, if Mark does not define a term and give someone a workable template to assess every public utterance he make on these matters to assess his consistency (or lack thereof), then why should anyone take him seriously??? Far from being a "major[ing] in minors" definitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey.
Thanks again for your valiant defense of American political realities against all the impositions of our shepherds.
Thanks for reminding us of why we need another Sedition Act in this country during a time of war Markmoud. Based on the way Mark has griped about matters such as these as well as his ahistorical approach to indefinite detainment of aliens during a time of war, perhaps "Al Sheada" is a more appropriate moniker for him.
Notes:
{1} To summarize this fallacy in a short blurb, the fallacy of red herring is one where a subject not relevant to the original issue being discussed is raised in order to divert attention away from the latter subject.
{2} This subject was covered in the following posting for those who are interested:
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor Is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)
{3} Which basically means not until the anniversaries of that event if we discuss them at all this year.
{4} Of which Mark would not recognize even if it was a twelve story general norm of interpretation with magnificent entrance hall, carpetting throughout, 24 hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof saying "This Is A General Norm of Theological Interpretation." (The above analogy was shamelessly ripped off from the main character of your host's favourite show of all time and tweaked a bit to fit the current situation.)
(On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited)
[Prefatory Note: This text was primarily thrown together about ten days ago and slightly expanded (and formatted into third person tense) for the present posting. -ISM]
It is really irritating when an experienced apologist such as Mark Shea makes the kinds of mistakes he does and on such a regular basis. We at Rerum Novarum will dispatch with these inanities briefly and in the process remind readers why a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Furthermore, Mark utilizes a classic argumentation fallacy{1} to try and confuse matters like an old parlour magician. Unfortunately for him, your host is not one to fall for such matters and after calling him on the matter, Mark responded as follows (his words in appropriately dark yellow font).
Shawn:
I was unaware that when a Council teaches that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" it is not the Church's teaching. I learn something new every day.
Mark of course makes a lot of presumptions in how he applies that passage. Furthermore, he also does not bother considering what Gaudium et Spes says about the theological qualifications of its own text.{2} If he did, he would not make such absurd statements.
I'm aware of the common game of "Simon says" which apologists for nuking civilians enjoy playing. The rules of the game are "If the Pope does not say "We declare, say, pronounce, and define that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of butchery and they should be pilgrimage sites where men can contemplate the self-destruction of mankind" why then it's just a "sneeze" and we can completely ignore them.
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment{3}, Mark makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, Mark does the same here with his own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation{4} knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon. And whether Mark or anyone else likes it, there are no magisterial condemnations of the atomic bombings. Period, end of discussion, the rest is commentary. But then again, if Mark took time to look into these matters before opening his mouth on matters of which he knows so little, he would know this.
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not "minimalist" however much Mark may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not.
Only the absolute bare minimum daily adult requirement of teaching from the Church's shepherds need be heeded. Any attempt to pay attention to what they say beyond this is ultra-montanism.
Any attempt to ascribe to magisterial status things which are not makes Mark no different in principle than those nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines who ascribed infallibility to every sneeze of Pope Pius IX. Except in Mark's case it is every statement is a defacto magisterial judgment. Theology is not that simple however much Mark may wish it was.
I'm likewise familiar with the fact that you, like so many Torture Apologists,
Maybe we should start calling Mark an Al Queda Apologist. It would be far more accurate than applying Markmoud AhmadinaShea's label to your host. (Gee, namecalling is fun is it not???)
still labor under the impression that I never defined torture when, in fact, I defined it repeatedly, just never to the satisfaction of those who wanted to remain confused.
Mark referred to dictionary definitions which themselves are not precise. Your host asked him numerous times in private "what is torture Mark" and he were as silent as a whore in church in response.
I also pointed out that the teaching (not the "sneeze") of the Church does not stop with "Don't torture".
Again, if Mark does not define the term before he uses it, the present writer has no reason to take anything he says on the matter seriously. Nor for that matter does anyone else.
It also says that prisoners are to be treated humanely--not merely "not exactly precisely technically tortured".
We reprise anew what was asked of Mark in private and to which he never responded:
--Would any and all attempts to coerce someone to reveal information they may not want to reveal when dealing with captured prisoners of war in a time of war be categorized as "torture"???
The question should be answered by Mark if he wants anything he says on these matters to be given any review whatsoever.
All this seems to elude you as it eludes others, which is why I continue to think you major in minors, Shawn.
Again, if Mark does not define a term and give someone a workable template to assess every public utterance he make on these matters to assess his consistency (or lack thereof), then why should anyone take him seriously??? Far from being a "major[ing] in minors" definitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey.
Thanks again for your valiant defense of American political realities against all the impositions of our shepherds.
Thanks for reminding us of why we need another Sedition Act in this country during a time of war Markmoud. Based on the way Mark has griped about matters such as these as well as his ahistorical approach to indefinite detainment of aliens during a time of war, perhaps "Al Sheada" is a more appropriate moniker for him.
Notes:
{1} To summarize this fallacy in a short blurb, the fallacy of red herring is one where a subject not relevant to the original issue being discussed is raised in order to divert attention away from the latter subject.
{2} This subject was covered in the following posting for those who are interested:
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor Is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)
{3} Which basically means not until the anniversaries of that event if we discuss them at all this year.
{4} Of which Mark would not recognize even if it was a twelve story general norm of interpretation with magnificent entrance hall, carpetting throughout, 24 hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof saying "This Is A General Norm of Theological Interpretation." (The above analogy was shamelessly ripped off from the main character of your host's favourite show of all time and tweaked a bit to fit the current situation.)
Monday, April 23, 2007
As today would have been the 84th birthday of Albert King -a man who was one of the greatest innovators and influences in postwar electric blues, I want to recognize this event with posting a video from YouTube. In this video is Albert, his greatest disciple Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Paul Butterfield of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band fame playing an Elmore James classic The Sky is Crying.
The Sky is Crying
May all three of them rest in peace.
The Sky is Crying
May all three of them rest in peace.
Friday, April 20, 2007
We are just about to pass the 8100 mark of those who have been murdered by the proponents of the "religion of peace" since September 11, 2001 (the total as of this writing is 8099). Just thought I would let the readers of this weblog know since so many in the MSM and even a number of those irresponsible sorts in the alternative media seem so amazingly obtuse to the true nature of the threat we are facing. But I digress.
Someone emailed your host today with the following thread which because of the subject matter at hand will be passed on at this time without comment except to say read the thread below and mull over its contents.
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Thursday, April 19, 2007
More on Al Queda and the Geneva Conventions:
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)