DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on February 01, 2007, 11:08:49 AM

Title: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: _JS on February 01, 2007, 11:08:49 AM
Text of Archbishop Tomasi’s remarks at interreligious service for peace

1/31/2007
Catholic Online

GENEVA, Switzerland (Catholic Online) – There can be no surrender to a culture of violence and no passive acceptance that war is inevitable, said a Vatican representative to a United Nations.

In Jan. 31 remarks at an interreligious service here focused on Pope Benedict XVI’s World Day of Peace message, “The Human Person, the Hear of Peace,” Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, head of the Vatican permanent observer mission of the Holy See to the U.N. and other international organizations in Geneva, drew a clear distinction between the tolerance and respect founded on justice.

The question of “how to bring healing to the world” is answered, he said, by going “beyond mere tolerance and reach out to others on the base of respect and justice.”

“The need to move beyond tolerance resides in the fact that this is a kind of passive acceptance of others imposed by law, a first step for sure but without personal involvement,” Archbishop Tomasi told representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities.

“A civilization of tolerance is built on a mine field: when attention lowers, the mines explode,” he said.

Respect, he said, looks instead at others of different nations, beliefs or cultures as “partners in the same humanity, children of the same creator, with the same aspirations for a happy and peaceful life.”

The apostolic nuncio said that “the search for peace begins in the heart of every individual” and progresses to countries and international organizations when “founded on the respect of the person, the right to life and religious freedom, the free exercise of basic human rights, the elimination of unjust inequalities.”

- - -

The following is the text of the intervention by Archbishop Tomasi at the Jan. 31 interreligious service for peace:

1. From different religious and cultural backgrounds, with our different histories, we come together this evening to affirm that peace is a gift to be welcomed and a task to be pursued. There is no surrender to the culture of conflict; no acceptance that clashes are unavoidable and that war is ever natural. Such confidence comes from a vision of peace that is deeply rooted in the core-values and insights shared by all faith traditions that God our Creator has endowed each person with an inalienable dignity and thus given us equality of rights and duties and established and unbreakable solidarity among all women and men.

2. I am honored to welcome you at this by now traditional occasion for a moment of prayer and reflection on peace inspired by the annual Message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has centered this year on the theme: The Human Person, the Heart of Peace. The daily concerns of the Representatives of countries of the world and of International Organizations as well as of the Authorities of Geneva and of civil society organizations – all most welcome – is the search for a better way of living together and respond to the natural desire of the human family for peace.

3. But we are not naïve. The phenomenon of violence has become increasingly complex in the 21st century and it poses unprecedented challenges to the international community. The work for peace implies now closing the gap between the rich and the poor; putting an end to civil wars, to terrorism, and all armed conflicts; stopping a revived arms race and the proliferation of a variety of weapons; rejecting the glorification of violence in the media. Millions of people are affected by current wars and civilians are targeted with total disregard of humanitarian law. These victims and the millions of forcibly displaced persons call for peace, for respect of their human dignity. It is a difficult moment but we know “there is a moral logic which is built into human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals and peoples.”

4. The search for peace begins in the heart of every individual and move forward to countries and to the international community, an orderly process founded on the respect of the person, the right to life and religious freedom, the free exercise of basic human rights, the elimination of unjust inequalities. So the question emerges of how we can bring healing to the world, of how we can go beyond mere tolerance and reach out to others on the base of respect and justice. The need to move beyond tolerance resides in the fact that this is a kind of passive acceptance of others imposed by law, a first step for sure but without personal involvement. It has been observed that a civilization of tolerance is built on a mine field: when attention lowers, the mines explode. Respect instead looks at others as partners in the same humanity, children of the same creator, with the same aspirations for a happy and peaceful life, even though the way may be different. Effective dialogue and negotiations for peace rest on the two pillars of respect and justice, the justice of daily practical relationships that tests the sincerity of our words and agreements. The process that goes from tolerance to respect and justice reaches its perfection when it discovers “that the highest vocation of every person is love.” In this realization, “we can find the ultimate reason for becoming staunch champions of human dignity and courageous builders of peace.”

5. Aramin, a former fighter, active member of Combatants for Peace, a group of former Palestinian militants and former Israeli soldiers who have teamed up to urge reconciliation, said a few days ago: “Over time, I became convinced we couldn’t solve our problems with weapons and we had to talk to the other side.” There is a clear convergence with the Message of Pope Benedict who states: “War always represents a failure for the international community and a grave loss for humanity.”

By walking together on the path of dialogue, respect, justice and love, God’s gift of peace can be ours even today.

- - -

© Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 01, 2007, 12:31:42 PM
And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: domer on February 01, 2007, 03:17:17 PM
When was the last time that occurred, Sirs?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 01, 2007, 03:19:45 PM
When was the last time that occurred, Sirs?

Iraq
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 01, 2007, 03:21:10 PM
I think there's a lot to reflect on in that statement, for everybody.  I don't except myself from that, I've succumbed too often to the "Death to the Oppressor" mentality.  However, my anger was always reserved for those who struck the first blow, or those whose wealth and power permitted them to oppress others less fortunate.  If my attitude in particular, and that of "the left" in general are not exactly beyond reproach, it remains nonetheless true that we are not the problem - - oppression and injustice will always and understandably provoke a violent reaction.  The real problem is with those who commit the aggression and provoke the reaction in the first place because they have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

<<And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort>>

Yeah, let's see just how many times the world's mightiest nation and only super-power was "forced" into war as a "necessary last resort" - Korea; Vietnam; Dominican Republic; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq; Kossovo; Serbia; Cuba (Bay of Pigs); did I leave anything out?  Probably.   "Necessary last resort," my ass.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 01, 2007, 03:25:56 PM
<<And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort>>

Yeah, let's see just how many times the world's mightiest nation and only super-power was "forced" into war as a "necessary last resort"  

Never said or even implied "forced" as a prerequisate for last resort.  If you're going to condemn me for supposedly misrepresenting your position(s), best start practicing what you preach
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Brassmask on February 01, 2007, 03:26:51 PM
And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort

Only if another country is attacking.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Mucho on February 01, 2007, 03:27:33 PM
I think there's a lot to reflect on in that statement, for everybody.  I don't except myself from that, I've succumbed too often to the "Death to the Oppressor" mentality.  However, my anger was always reserved for those who struck the first blow, or those whose wealth and power permitted them to oppress others less fortunate.  If my attitude in particular, and that of "the left" in general are not exactly beyond reproach, it remains nonetheless true that we are not the problem - - oppression and injustice will always and understandably provoke a violent reaction.  The real problem is with those who commit the aggression and provoke the reaction in the first place because they have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

<<And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort>>

Yeah, let's see just how many times the world's mightiest nation and only super-power was "forced" into war as a "necessary last resort" - Korea; Vietnam; Dominican Republic; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq; Kossovo; Serbia; Cuba (Bay of Pigs); did I leave anything out?  Probably.   "Necessary last resort," my ass.

You forgot St Ronnie's necesarry last resort invasion of the tiny inconsequential island of Granada!
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: domer on February 01, 2007, 03:40:07 PM
Even ignoring the false premises for the Iraq War, its initiation was not a last resort as, among other things, further work by the inspectors was still an option.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: domer on February 01, 2007, 03:49:05 PM
By the way, this is the Catholic Church at its best: noble, caring, resolute. It is the same in its social teachings. I have just acquired a volume devoted to just that topic; I look forward to some enlightening and warming reading. That is not to say that the Church is not institutionally hidebound, which it is in spades. But when it shines, Lord, it illuminates.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 01, 2007, 03:51:54 PM
And yet some times, war becomes a necessary last resort

Only if another country is attacking.

No, not "only".  In this new day & age it's also when terrorists are attacking
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Plane on February 01, 2007, 03:55:15 PM
   War is a miserable experience , but is it really a failure of reason?

    Not everyone is convinced that war is ignoble , the Al Queda pushes the notion that war can be holy , even the stab in the back kind.

     Idon't think it would be wise to reject an oppurtunity for peace in favor of an oppurtunity for war all other things being equal , but peace requires minimums of trust that are not always availible.

     Iraq and Saddam area a good example , was it really possibe to take Saddams word on anything?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 01, 2007, 04:01:25 PM
Idon't think it would be wise to reject an oppurtunity for peace in favor of an oppurtunity for war all other things being equal , but peace requires minimums of trust that are not always availible.  Iraq and Saddam area a good example , was it really possibe to take Saddams word on anything?

If you ask those on the left, especially here in the saloon, you'll likely get a vast majority claiming Saddam is more trustworthy than Bush     :-\
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 01, 2007, 04:01:46 PM
<<By the way, this is the Catholic Church at its best: noble, caring, resolute. It is the same in its social teachings. I have just acquired a volume devoted to just that topic; I look forward to some enlightening and warming reading. That is not to say that the Church is not institutionally hidebound, which it is in spades. But when it shines, Lord, it illuminates.>>

My thoughts exactly.  They've come a long way.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 01, 2007, 04:03:41 PM
<<If you ask those on the left, especially here in the saloon, you'll likely get a vast majority claiming Saddam is more trustworthy than Bush >>

As lying bastards, they're a perfect match.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: _JS on February 01, 2007, 05:00:56 PM
Quote
By the way, this is the Catholic Church at its best: noble, caring, resolute. It is the same in its social teachings. I have just acquired a volume devoted to just that topic; I look forward to some enlightening and warming reading. That is not to say that the Church is not institutionally hidebound, which it is in spades. But when it shines, Lord, it illuminates.

Very well put Domer.

I thought that all of the Archbishop's points were very wise, but I was especially appreciative of his fifth point, which included testimony from a former Palestinian militant who now belongs to:

Quote
Combatants for Peace, a group of former Palestinian militants and former Israeli soldiers who have teamed up to urge reconciliation

I think there is a lot of hope there. Reconciliation can overcome very great disparity. I think we can prevail over the mentality of kill or be killed, which is much more in tune with the teachings of Christ.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: domer on February 01, 2007, 05:19:55 PM
I totally agree, JS. I've also just acquired a celebrated title by an Israeli professor named, roughly, "Beyond Conflict Resolution: The Challenge of Reconciliation." While I don't yet know its contents, I have every reason to believe it is an outstanding addition to this discussion -- even as it points the way to the most difficult of human exercises: true reconciliation not just the ceasing of hostilities, which is what "conflict resolution" has meant in the Middle East. It is very heartening to see the papal nuncio and (presumably) this leading Israeli thinker dovetail so compatibly in their basic orientations.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Lanya on February 01, 2007, 07:54:12 PM
By the way, this is the Catholic Church at its best: noble, caring, resolute. It is the same in its social teachings. I have just acquired a volume devoted to just that topic; I look forward to some enlightening and warming reading. That is not to say that the Church is not institutionally hidebound, which it is in spades. But when it shines, Lord, it illuminates.

What is the book called?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 01, 2007, 11:36:59 PM
Iraq and Saddam area a good example , was it really possibe to take Saddams word on anything?

===============================================================
Well, yes.
Saddam said he had no WMD's, and the fact was that he didn't.

Juniorbush said he did, and Juniorbush was WRONG.

Thousands have died because the real liar was not identified.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Plane on February 02, 2007, 12:38:27 AM
Iraq and Saddam area a good example , was it really possibe to take Saddams word on anything?

===============================================================
Well, yes.
Saddam said he had no WMD's, and the fact was that he didn't.

Juniorbush said he did, and Juniorbush was WRONG.

Thousands have died because the real liar was not identified.


You mean that millions could still be liveing under the thumb of Saddam if he had of hd a reutation for honesty , or some means of proveing his word?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: domer on February 02, 2007, 01:21:32 AM
Lanya, the book I was referring to is "Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage," O'Brien & Shannon, eds., Orbis Books (1992), which consists of a series of encyclicals and other official Church documents. I got it from Amazon.com.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 03, 2007, 02:46:17 PM
<<You mean that millions could still be liveing under the thumb of Saddam if he had of hd a reutation for honesty , or some means of proveing his word?>>

I'm having a little trouble following your thought processes here, plane.  You asked a fairly straightforward question, whether it "was really possible" to take Saddam's word on anything.  You got a fairly straightforward answer, a simple yes, with a simple example drawn from real life:  on the issue of Iraqi WMD, it was "really possible" to have taken Saddam's word that he did not, and anyone who took Bush's word, that he (Saddam) did have WMD, would have been sadly deceived.

Your question was answered in a way that requires no further interpretation.  The answer was clear and unambiguous, although not, I gather, what you expected it would have been.  Not only does it prove that Saddam's word COULD have been believed, it proves that Bush's word CAN'T be believed.  Not exactly what a good American from the red earth of Georgia wants to hear, but there it is.  The sad truth, in all its unvarnished beauty.

Where you are going from there with your question quoted at the top of this post is kind of hard to fathom.  Do you mean to imply that there is a relationship between the ability to hold onto power and a leader's reputation for truthfulness?  In which case, how is it that George W. Bush, a known liar, still holds on as "leader" of the U.S.A.?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Plane on February 05, 2007, 06:14:36 AM
<<You mean that millions could still be liveing under the thumb of Saddam if he had of hd a reutation for honesty , or some means of proveing his word?>>

I'm having a little trouble following your thought processes here, plane.  You asked a fairly straightforward question, whether it "was really possible" to take Saddam's word on anything.  You got a fairly straightforward answer, a simple yes, with a simple example drawn from real life:  on the issue of Iraqi WMD, it was "really possible" to have taken Saddam's word that he did not, and anyone who took Bush's word, that he (Saddam) did have WMD, would have been sadly deceived.

Your question was answered in a way that requires no further interpretation.  The answer was clear and unambiguous, although not, I gather, what you expected it would have been.  Not only does it prove that Saddam's word COULD have been believed, it proves that Bush's word CAN'T be believed.  Not exactly what a good American from the red earth of Georgia wants to hear, but there it is.  The sad truth, in all its unvarnished beauty.

Where you are going from there with your question quoted at the top of this post is kind of hard to fathom.  Do you mean to imply that there is a relationship between the ability to hold onto power and a leader's reputation for truthfulness?  In which case, how is it that George W. Bush, a known liar, still holds on as "leader" of the U.S.A.?



I don't know how you missed this,  but Saddam had a carreer of mayhem and falsehood since his teens .

George Bush has not been caught in a single definate instance definately attempting to be deceptive.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 05, 2007, 12:17:02 PM
<<I don't know how you missed this,  but Saddam had a carreer of mayhem and falsehood since his teens .

<<George Bush has not been caught in a single definate instance definately attempting to be deceptive.>>

You've got to be kidding.  George W. Bush lied to SEC investigators.  Gave two conflicting explanations of why he was nine months late filing an insider trading report.  There was no way that both explanations could have been true.  That was an open-and-shut case of lying.

Lying about the weapons of mass destruction and the reasons for invading Iraq are clear enough to me and millions of others.  I make a lot of decisions in business and in private life where I have to conclude if someone is telling the truth or not, and I'm pretty experienced at it.  My call on what I've seen is not only that Bush lied, but frankly, I don't see how any reasonable person could believe otherwise.  Would I condemn the guy to death on evidence of that strength?  Probably not, but for everyday decisions not calling for proof beyond any or all reasonable doubt, what I've seen is more than good enough for me.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: BT on February 05, 2007, 12:23:25 PM
Quote
Lying about the weapons of mass destruction and the reasons for invading Iraq are clear enough to me and millions of others.  I make a lot of decisions in business and in private life where I have to conclude if someone is telling the truth or not, and I'm pretty experienced at it.  My call on what I've seen is not only that Bush lied, but frankly, I don't see how any reasonable person could believe otherwise.  Would I condemn the guy to death on evidence of that strength?  Probably not, but for everyday decisions not calling for proof beyond any or all reasonable doubt, what I've seen is more than good enough for me.

This technique of backing the validity of your claims because others may agree with you and besides if they don't they must be braindead is really pretty sad.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Amianthus on February 05, 2007, 12:24:41 PM
George W. Bush lied to SEC investigators.  Gave two conflicting explanations of why he was nine months late filing an insider trading report.

Wait a minute. The records of the SEC investigators were sealed and have never been released.

How do you know what he said to the investigators?
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 05, 2007, 12:26:38 PM
<<This technique of backing the validity of your claims because others may agree with you and besides if they don't they must be braindead is really pretty sad. >>

Really, I hope you don't expect me to repeat my reasons for believing that Bush lied in every. fucking. post.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 05, 2007, 12:29:56 PM
<<Wait a minute. The records of the SEC investigators were sealed and have never been released.>>

Well, I guess there must have been a few leaks in that seal then.

<<How do you know what he said to the investigators?>>

Same way I know everything else the guy reputedly said.  He doesn't call me up and tell me about it.  I read it in a reputable magazine or newspaper.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: BT on February 05, 2007, 01:34:02 PM
Quote
Really, I hope you don't expect me to repeat my reasons for believing that Bush lied in every. fucking. post.

I think simply stating that you believe Bush lied because you want him to have lied should suffice.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: Michael Tee on February 05, 2007, 03:04:32 PM
<<I think simply stating that you believe Bush lied because you want him to have lied should suffice. >>

Well, it would at least have the advantage of achieving symmetry with your view that Bush didn't lie because you don't want him to have lied.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: BT on February 05, 2007, 03:38:25 PM
Quote
Well, it would at least have the advantage of achieving symmetry with your view that Bush didn't lie because you don't want him to have lied.

There is that, too.
Title: Re: War - A Grave Loss for Humanity
Post by: sirs on February 05, 2007, 03:43:57 PM
<<I think simply stating that you believe Bush lied because you want him to have lied should suffice. >>

Well, it would at least have the advantage of achieving symmetry with your view that Bush didn't lie because you don't want him to have lied.

Actually that falls more into the line of Bush didn't lie, because the overwhelming evidence demonstrates such.  However I personally do concede a disposition of giving him the benefit of the doubt, since to believe as you and like minds do, requires one to believe he really is as evil as evil can be defined.  It also helps to have a mountain of evidence and facts to the contrary of your molehill of acusatory innuendo and selective facts in claiming how he did <lie>