Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
Ease up on Sammer Muhammed. It is true most Muslims don't make fun of the beliefs of other religions. That is why they are so outraged about the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoons. Think of it as the accumulated response of centuries of bile on Islam from the greatest western thinkers like Dante to ummmmm..... Pat Robertson?
Muslims are just starting to fight back in words having taken a leaf out of what Hannah Arendt say about Jews - to defend against all insults and assaults. Muslims are the new blacks and Jews I suppose, and it is now open season after 9/11 especially for the Islamophobic types to tar and feather all Muslims.
All the Muslims in the On Faith threads that I can identify are better Muslims than I am in the sense that they are polite, gracious and civil. They never mock the beliefs of others that I can recall since I read these theads in the last few days.
I am the only Muslim here to be a bit irreverent of other religions and beliefs sometimes. And I have no even begun to start on the Trinity, Son of God, Sacrements etc. You really don't want to get me started on that do you:). I find it personally distasteful to do so, but admittedly, do enjoy a bit of larkiness every now and then.
As a believer, I know belief (regardless of religion) is personal, sustaining and affirming for people who have faith.
And like Sammer Muhammad, I believe that Islam is peaceful and universal in its principles, and I seek the greater Jihad, not lesser Jihad. Look it up to know the difference.
It may be time to take out your bible, brush of the dust and open the Old Testament and refresh your memory on that not so tolerant and peaceful Christan God.
Side note:
you said **Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism.**
Maybe it would but Bush lied about the WMD and we were not under attack from Iraq. Duh!
"Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism."
Bush's invasion of Iraq is no more justified for the war on terrorism than Roosevelt would have been justified in invading Mexico in the war against fascism. We should have taken Mexico while we had the chance, right Cal?
Can anyone cite a U.S. military action since WWII that was in defense of the lands of the United States of America? THAT would be "self defense". Attacking Iraq, which was no more involved in terrorism than the United States was (likely less), was a opportunistic move which has nothing to do with "self defense". Of course, Cal believes Iraq was an al Queda supporter, because his buddy Dick Cheney told him so.
Jon, both Hitler and Stalin believed they were God. By some standards for God they both were. Hirohito was proclaimed by his people to be God. All the Caesars, Alex the great and most all emperors were given the title, son of god making them God.
Your difficulty is Devil and thinking that worshipping, honoring, adoring and glorifying Devil while calling Him God makes Him God. It doesn't.
Got faith? In what?
1. The Bible is God's word. Nope!
2. Ministers are God's agents. Nope!
3. Saying Devil is God makes Him God. Nope!
Interpretation 1,501 http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is more credibel by orders of magnitude than any of the 1,500 before it. Yet the interpreter says the Bible is a hoax so the whole story is a fraud. Lucky you. Else you've probably already sold your soul to Devil thinking He is God.
We truly will be better off when religion, in all its many versions, finally becomes a thing of the past. Ideally, thrown upon the same junkpile as the Greek gods, witches and all the other ridiculous beliefs that have plaqued mankind.
I am moslem, i think my religion is peaceful. I also respect my Jewish and Christian friends religions. I do not make fun of their religions.
====================================
Another idealist...there's no shortage of idealists in religion that's for sure!
In other words...don't make fun of any religion b/c that is wrong. I think we learned from the violent reaction to both Mohammed cartoons, and to Jesus cartoons, that people who call themselves religious...take Religion WAY TOO Seriously and won't even joke about their religion or any other religion.
Why do you take religion so seriously? Is something 2000 years old really that necessary today? Isn't it rather arrogant of humans to think that we could have figured out "god" or "creator" during a tiny period of existence when compared to the time it took for the universe to evolve?
I have watched Thomas's comments and editorials for awhile. If this editorial is a sign of more things to come from this guy, send his editorials to a right wing newspaper. How the Iraq war can ever be justified as a just war is the most idiotic question i have heard this year. On no basis was this war ever justified. A just war, in my opinion, is when you are attacked and must defend yourself. No Iraqi took part in 9-11. No Iraqi attacked America. The only Iraqi who attacked American interests was the guy who tried to take out Bushes family when they went to Kuwait a few years back. That doesnt justify a preemptive war on a soveriegn nation.
And please for God's sake, can we get all these stupid Christian, jewish and moslem radicals to shut the heck up. I am tired of reading the racist jargon about whose religion is right, wrong or evil. I am moslem, i think my religion is peaceful. I also respect my Jewish and Christian friends religions. I do not make fun of their religions. Get people like Cal Thomas out of here.
What part of mission accomplished doesn't Bush understand?
May 1, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln President Bush stood in front of a giant banner that read "Mission Accomplished." And it was!
What was that mission?
To remove a despot and his gas rich thugocracy from power and end that nation's ability to inflict it's will on our regional interests in oil and Israel.
That mission was accomplished in 3 weeks. With the added bonus of reminding the world that the USA was not to be triiffled with.
What remained to be accomplished post 2003?
To keep the British creation of "Iraq" with it's Sunnie controled Capitol in Bagdad intact ? No.
- Three Iraqs is three times less a threat.
- Forcing people who do not want to live together, to live together, is not a mission.
It's just a terrible waste of our national treasure and it cannot be done by an army
of 18-25 year old kids who do not speak the local langauge.
- the only way to do it is with another despot willing to terrorize that population into
submission.
To establish a military foothold in the middle east from which we can easily strike out against our enemies in the area? OK. New mission! No problem.
Great for Special Forces training and keeps a steady revenue stream to the "military-industrial complex.
The kurds in the North are the solution. they are willing allies and they are sit on the biggest pool of oil in Iraq.
- The kurdish North on the border with Turkey, as a trip wire, is where our
"green zone" belongs. Not in Saddam's old palaces in the heart of Sunnie-land.
- Lets make Dahuk the Capital of Iraq. Put in some Universities, Ministry of Oil, International
Airport and couple of museums and you are good to go. Civilization in the middle of the Arab
world. As for the rest of Iraq, let them have their civil war. They will be too busy killing each
other and too poor to give the Kurds or our troops a very hard time.
You guys are all idiots- your theories suck, your solutions suck even more, and your reasons for expelling all this crap out of your mouths really sucks. It is as if the Avatar of Suck has come to Earth to bless us all with his magical words exploding forth from the rectums that are your mouths!
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Saddam had no WMD and given the number of observers running around and flying over his country, was no threat to the US or his neighbors. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and thousands of American soldiers are dead or seriously disabled.
The war in Iraq is not an issue of "self defense".
The bible teaches "love your enemy". It is clear and uncompromising. I am an atheist, so I do not rely on this as any sort of authority. I am only pointing out the profound and almost stupefying hypocrisy of anyone who tries to use New Testament theology as a support for the Colossal Disaster that is the Iraq war -- a war supported in full throat from the start by Mr. Thomas -- a war that so far only benefits Iran.
"Calthomasanity". Isnt that clever or what? I prefer to see it as insaty though. I think it was Buddha who said that there will never be peace on earth. all we can do is generate the peace that lies within us through meditation, not prayer.
Right on, Cal. There's a lot wrong with this war but justification is not one of them.
Our President has a perfect right to lay the blame for the mess in Iraq at the door of the U.S. Military Chaplains.
Specifically, all Christian military clergy have failed the President. The God of the Islamic martyrs has 22 reconstituting virgins, a palace and much more good stuff awaiting them in paradise, no questions asked. This is very significant among young men who are not known for their looks or intelligence. Our stingy-God Christian Chaplains have offered our troops nothing but vague promises and big words spoken with great authority.
Furthermore, it is shameful to consider Iraq anything but a just war. President Bush's Higher Father includes big money interests, especially big oil. It was to secure money-gushing oil contracts and to protect the oil assets in Iraq that the U.S. became an invading and occupying power. For we patriots, no further justification is necessary for this conflict. Our troops will leave when the actual mission is accomplished. The next two generations of working people will be honored to pick up the tab.
As with all wars, the formal justification for the conflict is provided by the various religious organizations and God-fearing people such as yourself. Having let our troops down with a no-virgin policy, the President should consider any Christian designation other than Just War an act of treason, or at least the support of terrorism.
God Bless George Bush our President. And, let’s end the separation of Church and State as the new government of Iraq has done. Our President will never cut and run, unless things get much worse or another message is delivered from his Higher Father.
..."Bush expected us to be welcomed and the same thing the tiny, (can't remember it's name) country wanted. The green money would flow in and everyone is happy. He should have read, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" instead of watching that movie."
Dear Sir, it has been a long time. I hope that time finds you comfortable, healthy and at peace. I agree with your major premise, but not with some of your conclusions. Namely "It is still being debated whether American security and national interests justified U.S. intervention in Iraq." Not in honest debate Sir, and if it is not honest, what is the point? That is correct, to sway public opinion in support of a position that can not stand up under the glare of the light of day.
"Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism." You can not fight an asymetric threat with State sponsored acts of terrorism against the nebulous enemy. You only add fuel to the Insurgency's fire.
Hopefully, all man will turn towards God before God turns away from all remaining men. May God Bless you, and Keep you always my old friend.
How is terrorism different tahn attack by an Government? Mr. Thomas seems to be confused. First he triew to blame all wars on the evil of all men. There is generally true, but we are asking about this war.
He then explains the just war theory. He also invents an American theory of war for the liberation of the oppressed. When did this American theory define a just war? It does not define a just war because oppression is subjective. Truly all American wars against oppression (any fought during slavery and Jim Crow) were fought while America was oppressing others. The Iraq war was justified not be freedom for Iraqis, but removal of WMD. Iraq was not harborring terrorist that attacked the USA. Brother Thomas is stuck in the GOP and can not separate himself, even as tries to follow Christ.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" Who is thy neighbor?
"Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation"
Suffice to say that there is a reason very few knowledgeable Jews found such bizarre stretches of logic convincing. The idea that God's law is imperfect and in need of perfecting is perverse.
But of course, the joke is on Christians, because religions like Islam and Mormanism basically came along and did the same thing. Oh, you thought THAT was what was moral? Surprise! No: it's this other thing over here!
And believers claim that non-believers have no stable basis for morality? Sheesh.
Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. .
Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ."344 With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".345
The Old Law (Old Testament) is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.
The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.
The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
The Law of the Gospel (New Testament) fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.
The New Law (New Testament) is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31
Sorry for the lengthy message but it was necessary of fuller understanding with your erroneous comments and lack of understanding of the revealed revelations of the Old and New Testament.
"this can never happen until they finally realize that they must accept the differences between their Gods"
Now there's a grand idealist for you all. Tell me Nek, which authoritarian, infallible, so-called "supremely" appointed body of MEN (mostly)...will just simply say to the other (for instance Muslim vs. Christians) oh you're right and I'm wrong. Or better yet, we're all right, and forget the fact that I'm taught think I'm better than you based on my god.
Jon is just pathetic for bringing up Stalin and Hitler...
It is an often heard refrain among less well informed Christians that Hitler and Stalin (those slightly more knowledgeable sometimes add Pol Pot and Mao Zedong) were atheists and that their atheism led them to commit atrocities resulting in the deaths of millions of people. These claims are demonstrably false.
Hitler was never an atheist. The available evidence points to the fact that he remained a theist throughout his whole life. Or at the very least worshiped old gods from the Saxons...(the SS on the uniforms was an old mystical symbol)
It is true that Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, were all atheists. But the primary influences that led to their atrocities were not atheism per se but their dogmatic Marxism and communist ideas.
We see that in none of these cases could atheism be made to "take the blame" for the atrocities committed by these men.
=========================
Cal Thomas is doing a great job, and I hope more Christians like him become their mouth piece...In fact I would encourage people like Cal Thomas to be appointed Pope, ArchBishop of Cantebary, and President of the United States...OH yeah, that already happened! Like I said keep up the great work Xians!
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first.
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first.
GOOD GOD, CALVIN: Wars will never stop until humans learn to make peace with each other, and this can never happen until they finally realize that they must accept the differences between their Gods. Hold your breath, Cal, old boy.
"I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"When He [Jesus] found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation."
Sorry to threaten your beliefs with some actual information, but how exactly was Hitler an atheist?
I remember when you said Falwell would never put PTL into bankruptcy- which is what he wanted to do.
You claim that although Jesus never said a word against gays that by his saying " I came not to change a word of the O.T." he meant all should be observed. Do you eat pork, separate yourself from your wife during her menses and all the other things called for in O.T.
I say that Jesus did not fulfill the O.T. prophecies and have an offer to shut the site http://www.religionquestrioned. based upon that.
If you will respond I will also show you lies of Your God and Your Jesus
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first. (And Thomas seems to love to quote the Constitution to suit his purposes.) The only basis for the latter is if the U.N. decides to act against a dictator. Our Constitutional endorsement of international treaties makes them the law of the land, and the law is: you cannot attack first. Period.
As to the Faith Base of this discussion, my view is best summed up as "A man without religion is like a fish without pajamas."
My beliefs come from the one who taught me to love and to forgive all people even those who wish to persecute me.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you,
Mr Mark, have you seen the Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse That Roared?" Bush was using the premise of that film for his logic, in a manner.
The plot of the film is simple, a sarcastic view of the "Marshal Plan." The idea is that a tiny country declares war on us and then surrenders so they can be occupied and receive foreign aid.
Bush expected us to be welcomed and the same thing the tiny, (can't remember it's name) country wanted. The green money would flow in and everyone is happy. He should have read, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" instead of watching that movie.
The reason it's in a faith forum is that the whole idea of a "just war" is a concept that was put forward (or, at the least, codified) by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Even Mr Thomas makes this clear in his column above.
Without the faith component, the concept of a "just war" would not exist...and neither would today's question.
Are you really a Christian? Why should we retaliate when we were hit by terrorism? Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. So if we are really a Christian nation, we should let the terroists to keep attacking us. In the mean time, we talk with them. Eventually they will understand us and stop attacking. Isn't the right thing to do if we are really Christians following Jesus' teaching?
"Was there any war in history that was NOT, in some form another, the product of self-interest?"
Good question. Here's mine:
Has there been a war in history where a "weaker" nation declared war against a nation that was clearly its superior in wealth, weaponry and manpower? Why is it that powerful nations are constantly making war on weaker nations with the stated causus belli that the weaker nation is "a threat" to the stronger nation?
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."58
2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Intentional homicide
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69
Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.
III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE
Peace
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."97
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."98 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.99
2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."100 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"101 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."102 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."103
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "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."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112
Was there any war in history that was NOT, in some form another,one the product of self-interest? From time memorial, land acquisition has been one culprit. Religion, another. And there was, and continues to be, demographical domination for economic reasons. Currently, the Iraq war is based on OUR self-interest. . .and that is our insationable--and irresponsible--need for OIL.
And your god is looking down on wars with approval?
You look upon your god as being compassionate, loving, peaceful and gentle, ostensibly forming us in his image. Millions of people have died because of mankind's self-interest (ours being the most disgusting). How, Cal, do you explain that hypocracy?
And believers--not thinkers--use "him" as a symbol?
"and other overwhelming interests" What does the author mean by this?
In the case of Iraq, I respectfully submit that our overwhelming interest has been and remails oil -- not democracy, terrorism, or the future of the Middle East. Iraqi oil is not just a by product, but the main geopolitical strategic purpose of the war, which is not being publicly stated. There is no other plausible explanation for the sacrifice of so many lives (both Christian and not). This is also consistent with the refusal to leave Iraq, but rather increase our entanglement in the region. It is also consistent with many statements made by our President and administration.
Does God support war so that we may drive huge vehicles and waste energy like no other nation on earth?
the stated intentions of going to war were found by bush's own admission to be based on wrong intelligence-
so pre-emptive strikes are not applicable
unless youre suggesting mr thomas that all muslims are terrorists-
obviously 18 of the 19 were saudis and we havent declared war on arabia but continue an amicable relationship
Mr Mark. Do you have the foggiest notion how much wine is required for one to make peace with Devil? Give'em a break. It's so "God awful" hot in hell ya know.
Mr Thomas presents old wine in old bottles. Worse, he thinks he has a monopoly on both the wine and the bottles!
How does "making peace with god" end war if that same god ORDERS you to war, as did the god of the Old Testament? What if god orders you to slaughter your/His enemies - every man, woman, child and animal in a city, for example? Wouldn't you need to do that to make "peace with god" (see Numbers 31 for an example of god's benevolence)?
What if you're a self-identified-born-again-Christian-modern-day president who tells the world that you consult "a higher father" when deciding whether or not to wage war? Is that making "peace with god?"
Strangely, the slaughtered never find such a process very peaceful at all.
Maybe the real solution is for the world to move beyond the ancient myths and to solve our problems - even war - with the intellect and compassion that we all have inside ourselves. Maybe we need to take responsibility for our actions, rather than making god the scapegoat for our folly...or the excuse for our doing what we knew was wrong to begin with.
All Comments (58)
Google is the best search engine Google
May 18, 2007 5:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 18, 2007 05:23
Google is the best search engine Google
May 18, 2007 4:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 18, 2007 04:41
Calvin, please stop making the good news of Christ look so bad. Maybe just stop writing about anything religous.
January 12, 2007 1:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:39
Jeff Wismer
Ease up on Sammer Muhammed. It is true most Muslims don't make fun of the beliefs of other religions. That is why they are so outraged about the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoons. Think of it as the accumulated response of centuries of bile on Islam from the greatest western thinkers like Dante to ummmmm..... Pat Robertson?
Muslims are just starting to fight back in words having taken a leaf out of what Hannah Arendt say about Jews - to defend against all insults and assaults. Muslims are the new blacks and Jews I suppose, and it is now open season after 9/11 especially for the Islamophobic types to tar and feather all Muslims.
All the Muslims in the On Faith threads that I can identify are better Muslims than I am in the sense that they are polite, gracious and civil. They never mock the beliefs of others that I can recall since I read these theads in the last few days.
I am the only Muslim here to be a bit irreverent of other religions and beliefs sometimes. And I have no even begun to start on the Trinity, Son of God, Sacrements etc. You really don't want to get me started on that do you:). I find it personally distasteful to do so, but admittedly, do enjoy a bit of larkiness every now and then.
As a believer, I know belief (regardless of religion) is personal, sustaining and affirming for people who have faith.
And like Sammer Muhammad, I believe that Islam is peaceful and universal in its principles, and I seek the greater Jihad, not lesser Jihad. Look it up to know the difference.
January 11, 2007 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 21:40
Cal,
It may be time to take out your bible, brush of the dust and open the Old Testament and refresh your memory on that not so tolerant and peaceful Christan God.
Side note:
you said **Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism.**
Maybe it would but Bush lied about the WMD and we were not under attack from Iraq. Duh!
January 11, 2007 2:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 02:06
Anyone who doesn't think that Marxism was militant atheism and proud of its humanistic foundations has never read Marx in any depth whatsoever.
How is it that the majority of the comments about just war give themselves to name calling. Is it because arguments against just war are lacking?
January 11, 2007 12:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 11, 2007 00:06
"Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism."
Bush's invasion of Iraq is no more justified for the war on terrorism than Roosevelt would have been justified in invading Mexico in the war against fascism. We should have taken Mexico while we had the chance, right Cal?
Can anyone cite a U.S. military action since WWII that was in defense of the lands of the United States of America? THAT would be "self defense". Attacking Iraq, which was no more involved in terrorism than the United States was (likely less), was a opportunistic move which has nothing to do with "self defense". Of course, Cal believes Iraq was an al Queda supporter, because his buddy Dick Cheney told him so.
January 10, 2007 8:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 20:25
Jon, you say:
"Hitler and Stalin shared atheism in common!!!"
They didn't go to war in the name of atheism, they went to war in the name of fascism and communism.
January 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 19:11
Jon, both Hitler and Stalin believed they were God. By some standards for God they both were. Hirohito was proclaimed by his people to be God. All the Caesars, Alex the great and most all emperors were given the title, son of god making them God.
Your difficulty is Devil and thinking that worshipping, honoring, adoring and glorifying Devil while calling Him God makes Him God. It doesn't.
Got faith? In what?
1. The Bible is God's word. Nope!
2. Ministers are God's agents. Nope!
3. Saying Devil is God makes Him God. Nope!
Interpretation 1,501 http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is more credibel by orders of magnitude than any of the 1,500 before it. Yet the interpreter says the Bible is a hoax so the whole story is a fraud. Lucky you. Else you've probably already sold your soul to Devil thinking He is God.
January 10, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 19:11
We truly will be better off when religion, in all its many versions, finally becomes a thing of the past. Ideally, thrown upon the same junkpile as the Greek gods, witches and all the other ridiculous beliefs that have plaqued mankind.
January 10, 2007 6:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 18:54
People of your ilk lost the war.... See November 2006
January 10, 2007 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 18:40
Sammer Muhammed said:
I am moslem, i think my religion is peaceful. I also respect my Jewish and Christian friends religions. I do not make fun of their religions.
====================================
Another idealist...there's no shortage of idealists in religion that's for sure!
In other words...don't make fun of any religion b/c that is wrong. I think we learned from the violent reaction to both Mohammed cartoons, and to Jesus cartoons, that people who call themselves religious...take Religion WAY TOO Seriously and won't even joke about their religion or any other religion.
Why do you take religion so seriously? Is something 2000 years old really that necessary today? Isn't it rather arrogant of humans to think that we could have figured out "god" or "creator" during a tiny period of existence when compared to the time it took for the universe to evolve?
January 10, 2007 6:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 18:16
I have watched Thomas's comments and editorials for awhile. If this editorial is a sign of more things to come from this guy, send his editorials to a right wing newspaper. How the Iraq war can ever be justified as a just war is the most idiotic question i have heard this year. On no basis was this war ever justified. A just war, in my opinion, is when you are attacked and must defend yourself. No Iraqi took part in 9-11. No Iraqi attacked America. The only Iraqi who attacked American interests was the guy who tried to take out Bushes family when they went to Kuwait a few years back. That doesnt justify a preemptive war on a soveriegn nation.
And please for God's sake, can we get all these stupid Christian, jewish and moslem radicals to shut the heck up. I am tired of reading the racist jargon about whose religion is right, wrong or evil. I am moslem, i think my religion is peaceful. I also respect my Jewish and Christian friends religions. I do not make fun of their religions. Get people like Cal Thomas out of here.
January 10, 2007 5:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:53
What part of mission accomplished doesn't Bush understand?
May 1, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln President Bush stood in front of a giant banner that read "Mission Accomplished." And it was!
What was that mission?
To remove a despot and his gas rich thugocracy from power and end that nation's ability to inflict it's will on our regional interests in oil and Israel.
That mission was accomplished in 3 weeks. With the added bonus of reminding the world that the USA was not to be triiffled with.
What remained to be accomplished post 2003?
To keep the British creation of "Iraq" with it's Sunnie controled Capitol in Bagdad intact ? No.
- Three Iraqs is three times less a threat.
- Forcing people who do not want to live together, to live together, is not a mission.
It's just a terrible waste of our national treasure and it cannot be done by an army
of 18-25 year old kids who do not speak the local langauge.
- the only way to do it is with another despot willing to terrorize that population into
submission.
To establish a military foothold in the middle east from which we can easily strike out against our enemies in the area? OK. New mission! No problem.
Great for Special Forces training and keeps a steady revenue stream to the "military-industrial complex.
The kurds in the North are the solution. they are willing allies and they are sit on the biggest pool of oil in Iraq.
- The kurdish North on the border with Turkey, as a trip wire, is where our
"green zone" belongs. Not in Saddam's old palaces in the heart of Sunnie-land.
- Lets make Dahuk the Capital of Iraq. Put in some Universities, Ministry of Oil, International
Airport and couple of museums and you are good to go. Civilization in the middle of the Arab
world. As for the rest of Iraq, let them have their civil war. They will be too busy killing each
other and too poor to give the Kurds or our troops a very hard time.
Steven Hunziker
January 10, 2007 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:48
You guys are all idiots- your theories suck, your solutions suck even more, and your reasons for expelling all this crap out of your mouths really sucks. It is as if the Avatar of Suck has come to Earth to bless us all with his magical words exploding forth from the rectums that are your mouths!
January 10, 2007 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:47
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Saddam had no WMD and given the number of observers running around and flying over his country, was no threat to the US or his neighbors. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and thousands of American soldiers are dead or seriously disabled.
The war in Iraq is not an issue of "self defense".
The bible teaches "love your enemy". It is clear and uncompromising. I am an atheist, so I do not rely on this as any sort of authority. I am only pointing out the profound and almost stupefying hypocrisy of anyone who tries to use New Testament theology as a support for the Colossal Disaster that is the Iraq war -- a war supported in full throat from the start by Mr. Thomas -- a war that so far only benefits Iran.
January 10, 2007 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:31
"If you to hear what an idiot thinks, ask an idiot" There is no other rationale for soliciting comment from Cal Thomas on this or any other issue.
January 10, 2007 5:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:19
"Calthomasanity". Isnt that clever or what? I prefer to see it as insaty though. I think it was Buddha who said that there will never be peace on earth. all we can do is generate the peace that lies within us through meditation, not prayer.
January 10, 2007 5:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:14
Right on, Cal. There's a lot wrong with this war but justification is not one of them.
Our President has a perfect right to lay the blame for the mess in Iraq at the door of the U.S. Military Chaplains.
Specifically, all Christian military clergy have failed the President. The God of the Islamic martyrs has 22 reconstituting virgins, a palace and much more good stuff awaiting them in paradise, no questions asked. This is very significant among young men who are not known for their looks or intelligence. Our stingy-God Christian Chaplains have offered our troops nothing but vague promises and big words spoken with great authority.
Furthermore, it is shameful to consider Iraq anything but a just war. President Bush's Higher Father includes big money interests, especially big oil. It was to secure money-gushing oil contracts and to protect the oil assets in Iraq that the U.S. became an invading and occupying power. For we patriots, no further justification is necessary for this conflict. Our troops will leave when the actual mission is accomplished. The next two generations of working people will be honored to pick up the tab.
As with all wars, the formal justification for the conflict is provided by the various religious organizations and God-fearing people such as yourself. Having let our troops down with a no-virgin policy, the President should consider any Christian designation other than Just War an act of treason, or at least the support of terrorism.
God Bless George Bush our President. And, let’s end the separation of Church and State as the new government of Iraq has done. Our President will never cut and run, unless things get much worse or another message is delivered from his Higher Father.
And, God Bless you too, Cal. You're the bomb.
January 10, 2007 5:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:07
Cal, I may disagree with everything you say, but I respect your ability to get the Washington Post to publish your blather.
January 10, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 17:05
..."Bush expected us to be welcomed and the same thing the tiny, (can't remember it's name) country wanted. The green money would flow in and everyone is happy. He should have read, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" instead of watching that movie."
That would be the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick
January 10, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:41
Quite right, "man" and "men" should read "human" as it was intended to. I stand corrected kind Sir. Again, God Bless you and yours.
January 10, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:34
Dear Sir, it has been a long time. I hope that time finds you comfortable, healthy and at peace. I agree with your major premise, but not with some of your conclusions. Namely "It is still being debated whether American security and national interests justified U.S. intervention in Iraq." Not in honest debate Sir, and if it is not honest, what is the point? That is correct, to sway public opinion in support of a position that can not stand up under the glare of the light of day.
"Also included in the definition of a just war would be the right to self defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism." You can not fight an asymetric threat with State sponsored acts of terrorism against the nebulous enemy. You only add fuel to the Insurgency's fire.
Hopefully, all man will turn towards God before God turns away from all remaining men. May God Bless you, and Keep you always my old friend.
January 10, 2007 4:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:32
A practical guide to getting around Christianity, perhaps?
A mother was preparing pancakes for her sons, Kevin, five, and Ryan, three. The boys began to argue over who would get the first pancake.
Their mother saw the opportunity for a moral lesson. "If Jesus were sitting here, He would say, "Let my brother have the first pancake. I can wait."
Kevin turned to his younger brother and said, "Ryan, you be Jesus."
------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2007 4:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:28
How is terrorism different tahn attack by an Government? Mr. Thomas seems to be confused. First he triew to blame all wars on the evil of all men. There is generally true, but we are asking about this war.
He then explains the just war theory. He also invents an American theory of war for the liberation of the oppressed. When did this American theory define a just war? It does not define a just war because oppression is subjective. Truly all American wars against oppression (any fought during slavery and Jim Crow) were fought while America was oppressing others. The Iraq war was justified not be freedom for Iraqis, but removal of WMD. Iraq was not harborring terrorist that attacked the USA. Brother Thomas is stuck in the GOP and can not separate himself, even as tries to follow Christ.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" Who is thy neighbor?
January 10, 2007 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:16
"Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation"
Suffice to say that there is a reason very few knowledgeable Jews found such bizarre stretches of logic convincing. The idea that God's law is imperfect and in need of perfecting is perverse.
But of course, the joke is on Christians, because religions like Islam and Mormanism basically came along and did the same thing. Oh, you thought THAT was what was moral? Surprise! No: it's this other thing over here!
And believers claim that non-believers have no stable basis for morality? Sheesh.
January 10, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 16:00
Who's to blame for war? Surprise! It's everyone who isn't a Christian!
Next on On Faith: why Jews and atheists are to blame for cancer.
January 10, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:58
To Saul 2006:
Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. .
Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ."344 With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".345
The Old Law (Old Testament) is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.
The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.
The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
The Law of the Gospel (New Testament) fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.
The New Law (New Testament) is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31
Sorry for the lengthy message but it was necessary of fuller understanding with your erroneous comments and lack of understanding of the revealed revelations of the Old and New Testament.
January 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:57
There are no just wars for those who suffer in them. All wars are like lightning strikes that randomly strike and kill. No justice there.
January 10, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:56
Nek said:
"this can never happen until they finally realize that they must accept the differences between their Gods"
Now there's a grand idealist for you all. Tell me Nek, which authoritarian, infallible, so-called "supremely" appointed body of MEN (mostly)...will just simply say to the other (for instance Muslim vs. Christians) oh you're right and I'm wrong. Or better yet, we're all right, and forget the fact that I'm taught think I'm better than you based on my god.
LOL!
January 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:43
Jon is just pathetic for bringing up Stalin and Hitler...
It is an often heard refrain among less well informed Christians that Hitler and Stalin (those slightly more knowledgeable sometimes add Pol Pot and Mao Zedong) were atheists and that their atheism led them to commit atrocities resulting in the deaths of millions of people. These claims are demonstrably false.
Hitler was never an atheist. The available evidence points to the fact that he remained a theist throughout his whole life. Or at the very least worshiped old gods from the Saxons...(the SS on the uniforms was an old mystical symbol)
It is true that Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, were all atheists. But the primary influences that led to their atrocities were not atheism per se but their dogmatic Marxism and communist ideas.
We see that in none of these cases could atheism be made to "take the blame" for the atrocities committed by these men.
=========================
Cal Thomas is doing a great job, and I hope more Christians like him become their mouth piece...In fact I would encourage people like Cal Thomas to be appointed Pope, ArchBishop of Cantebary, and President of the United States...OH yeah, that already happened! Like I said keep up the great work Xians!
January 10, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:36
Cecil Bothwell writes:
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first.
That is a lie. Stop your b.s. arguments fella.
January 10, 2007 3:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:34
Cecil Bothwell writes:
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first.
That is a lie. Stop your b.s. arguments fella.
January 10, 2007 3:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:34
GOOD GOD, CALVIN: Wars will never stop until humans learn to make peace with each other, and this can never happen until they finally realize that they must accept the differences between their Gods. Hold your breath, Cal, old boy.
January 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:28
Jon,
Here's a couple of quotes from Hitler:
"I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"When He [Jesus] found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation."
Sorry to threaten your beliefs with some actual information, but how exactly was Hitler an atheist?
January 10, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:24
I remember when you said Falwell would never put PTL into bankruptcy- which is what he wanted to do.
You claim that although Jesus never said a word against gays that by his saying " I came not to change a word of the O.T." he meant all should be observed. Do you eat pork, separate yourself from your wife during her menses and all the other things called for in O.T.
I say that Jesus did not fulfill the O.T. prophecies and have an offer to shut the site
http://www.religionquestrioned. based upon that.
If you will respond I will also show you lies of Your God and Your Jesus
January 10, 2007 3:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 15:06
If that sounds immoral to you then God help us all...
January 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:50
Thomas says, "The American point of view has generally been that a war can be just if we are attacked first, or if it seeks to liberate other people from the type of oppressive government or organizing system that enslaves them to dictators ..."
Well, that may or may not be the American point of view, but Amercian Constitutional law only permits the first. (And Thomas seems to love to quote the Constitution to suit his purposes.) The only basis for the latter is if the U.N. decides to act against a dictator. Our Constitutional endorsement of international treaties makes them the law of the land, and the law is: you cannot attack first. Period.
As to the Faith Base of this discussion, my view is best summed up as "A man without religion is like a fish without pajamas."
January 10, 2007 2:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:50
How comes the WP continues to print such garbage? This is not balance, this is pathetic.
January 10, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:48
My beliefs come from the one who taught me to love and to forgive all people even those who wish to persecute me.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you,
January 10, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:47
Which God? According to humans, there are thousands.
I suggest that you may have picked the wrong one. Assuming that there is a right one, of which I am doubtful.
January 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:08
Whenever evil strikes justice must be evoked to protect the innocent!
January 10, 2007 2:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:05
Hitler and Stalin shared atheism in common!!!
Just goes to show that religion is not to blame for all of the wars fought in human history...
January 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 14:03
Mr Mark, have you seen the Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse That Roared?" Bush was using the premise of that film for his logic, in a manner.
The plot of the film is simple, a sarcastic view of the "Marshal Plan." The idea is that a tiny country declares war on us and then surrenders so they can be occupied and receive foreign aid.
Bush expected us to be welcomed and the same thing the tiny, (can't remember it's name) country wanted. The green money would flow in and everyone is happy. He should have read, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" instead of watching that movie.
January 10, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:59
Victoria writes:
"I DONT SEE WHY THIS IS IN A FATH FORUM."
The reason it's in a faith forum is that the whole idea of a "just war" is a concept that was put forward (or, at the least, codified) by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Even Mr Thomas makes this clear in his column above.
Without the faith component, the concept of a "just war" would not exist...and neither would today's question.
January 10, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:54
Are you really a Christian? Why should we retaliate when we were hit by terrorism? Jesus told us to turn the other cheek. So if we are really a Christian nation, we should let the terroists to keep attacking us. In the mean time, we talk with them. Eventually they will understand us and stop attacking. Isn't the right thing to do if we are really Christians following Jesus' teaching?
January 10, 2007 1:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:40
War is the instrument of the rich and powerful to obtain and/or control resources. There would be war with or without religion. It is human nature.
We must recognize and then leave our animal past behind if we are to prevent war.
January 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:37
Bill writes:
"Was there any war in history that was NOT, in some form another, the product of self-interest?"
Good question. Here's mine:
Has there been a war in history where a "weaker" nation declared war against a nation that was clearly its superior in wealth, weaponry and manpower? Why is it that powerful nations are constantly making war on weaker nations with the stated causus belli that the weaker nation is "a threat" to the stronger nation?
January 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:36
You shall not kill.54
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."58
2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Intentional homicide
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69
Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.
III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE
Peace
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."97
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."98 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.99
2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."100 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"101 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."102 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."103
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "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."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112
January 10, 2007 1:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:35
Was there any war in history that was NOT, in some form another,one the product of self-interest? From time memorial, land acquisition has been one culprit. Religion, another. And there was, and continues to be, demographical domination for economic reasons. Currently, the Iraq war is based on OUR self-interest. . .and that is our insationable--and irresponsible--need for OIL.
And your god is looking down on wars with approval?
You look upon your god as being compassionate, loving, peaceful and gentle, ostensibly forming us in his image. Millions of people have died because of mankind's self-interest (ours being the most disgusting). How, Cal, do you explain that hypocracy?
And believers--not thinkers--use "him" as a symbol?
January 10, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 13:22
"and other overwhelming interests" What does the author mean by this?
In the case of Iraq, I respectfully submit that our overwhelming interest has been and remails oil -- not democracy, terrorism, or the future of the Middle East. Iraqi oil is not just a by product, but the main geopolitical strategic purpose of the war, which is not being publicly stated. There is no other plausible explanation for the sacrifice of so many lives (both Christian and not). This is also consistent with the refusal to leave Iraq, but rather increase our entanglement in the region. It is also consistent with many statements made by our President and administration.
Does God support war so that we may drive huge vehicles and waste energy like no other nation on earth?
January 10, 2007 12:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 12:59
the stated intentions of going to war were found by bush's own admission to be based on wrong intelligence-
so pre-emptive strikes are not applicable
unless youre suggesting mr thomas that all muslims are terrorists-
obviously 18 of the 19 were saudis and we havent declared war on arabia but continue an amicable relationship
I DONT SEE WHY THIS IS IN A FATH FORUM
January 10, 2007 12:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 12:51
Mr Mark. Do you have the foggiest notion how much wine is required for one to make peace with Devil? Give'em a break. It's so "God awful" hot in hell ya know.
January 10, 2007 12:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 12:21
Mr Thomas presents old wine in old bottles. Worse, he thinks he has a monopoly on both the wine and the bottles!
How does "making peace with god" end war if that same god ORDERS you to war, as did the god of the Old Testament? What if god orders you to slaughter your/His enemies - every man, woman, child and animal in a city, for example? Wouldn't you need to do that to make "peace with god" (see Numbers 31 for an example of god's benevolence)?
What if you're a self-identified-born-again-Christian-modern-day president who tells the world that you consult "a higher father" when deciding whether or not to wage war? Is that making "peace with god?"
Strangely, the slaughtered never find such a process very peaceful at all.
Maybe the real solution is for the world to move beyond the ancient myths and to solve our problems - even war - with the intellect and compassion that we all have inside ourselves. Maybe we need to take responsibility for our actions, rather than making god the scapegoat for our folly...or the excuse for our doing what we knew was wrong to begin with.
January 10, 2007 12:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 12:16
It's perfectly clear Cal. Devil urges people to make war. Yes, theologians, Devil's representatives and kings of all kinds i