Discussion with a staunch Republican
This commentary is from someone that goes to Catholic Mass every Sunday.
Donviti wrote:
This is how we treat human beings in America:
Detainee began to cry. Visibly shaken. Very emotional. Detainee cried. Disturbed. Detainee began to cry. Detainee bit the IV tube completely in two. Started moaning. Uncomfortable. Moaning. Began crying hard spontaneously. Crying and praying. Very agitated. Yelled. Agitated and violent. Detainee spat. Detainee proclaimed his innocence. Whining. Dizzy. Forgetting things. Angry. Upset. Yelled for Jesus …
Urinated on himself. Began to cry. Asked God for forgiveness. Cried. Cried. Became violent. Began to cry. Broke down and cried. Began to pray and openly cried. Cried out to Jesus several times. Trembled uncontrollably.
—–Original Message—–
From: True Patriot
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008
To: Donviti
Subject: Re: This is your America now
Why was he being detained? What was he trying to do and to whom? Maybe he was stopped from doing something horrible.
Also, our prisons are over-crowded with convicted murderers and all sorts of other nuts that if you ask any of them; they will swear on a stack of bibles that they are innocent.
Donvit wrote:
He was released and never tried for anything.
—–Original Message—–
From: True Patriot
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008
To: Donviti
Subject: Re: This is your America now
Our government is not perfect. And, if they were to error; I would rather it be with that guy than having another 9/11.
Donviti wrote:
so you agree with torture though, guilty or innocent? We should be allowed to torture
—–Original Message—–
From: True Patriot
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008
To: Donviti
Subject: Re: This is your America now
I did not say that. That is your problem. You read into things that are not there. I have no opinion on torture. I leave it in the hands of John McCain and my government. I am sure that their definition of torture will be quite different from that of Christy’s. I do not want to leave it up to someone from the ACLU.
In other words:
LALALALALALALALALALALALALLALAICANTHEAR
YOURSCREAMSLALALALALAALACANTHEARYOU!!!!
Remember the bit about sinning in your heart? I hope this guy goes to confession because he has sinned in his heart.
I have no opinion on torture.
“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke.
From George Washington, who had to ask permission of Congress to bomb NYC, to George Bush, who laughs in their ineffectual faces.
Where are we going America? And who will lead us there?
Ask that Catholic if he would let his Pope decide on torture.
What, pray tell, does the fact that this idiot goes to Mass every week have to do with any of this?
And as for Cassandra’s “that Catholic” comment, is this what we’ve come down to–lampooning somebody’s religion because of their political views?
If this is what you’ve got, you’re in for one hell of a surprise (nationally) in November.
Let’s not parody religion, we have had enough of that lately. I say let’s use reason please.
I expect that the fact that “this idiot” goes to Mass every week is supposed to remind folks that “this idiot’s” endorsement of torture doesn’t exactly jive with the message of the New Testament that is the guiding document of his religion.
And, this Catholic doesn’t see how anyone got lampooned or parodied. It is most certainly not out of bounds to ask a so-called professed Catholic how he reconciles his endorsement of torture with the teachings of his Church.
…..Not to decide is to decide.
This is very true Cassandra.
Reason would dictate that any person who acts contrary to the position of the NT or the Catechism in this case would be excommunicated given the Catholic Bishops International Denunciation of Torture. At the minimum no longer allowed communion.
If someone professes a faith they should be called to live it.
Or spend the rest of his or her days in a confessional or a monastery doing penance if they truly believe in its tenets and advocate torture. The Pope, you will note, said basically the same at Vatican.va.
But you must be sensitive to the fact Catholics make up part of the electorate and are sensitive about jabs at the Pope. We already had these intellectual wars of religion, but in point of fact, I would ask the same question in probably the same way given that it was a Catholic who persecuted our family and drove us out of Europe, and it was another who exiled part of my family to Europe, and a protestant who acting on his moral conscience without reason who exiled another branch to Latin America.
So I have no problem questioning the church’s moral authority when it does not live up to the Catechism and plays those inquisition games or allows tacitly or explicitly its members to do so. You can see my article Persecuting Quakers is as Fun as Burning Witches where the Puritans, Calvinists and Catholics did their work until that ancestor loaded up for the Pennsylvania territory.
Cassandra, if you can claim not to recognize dv’s purpose in his rhetorical use of the opening line,
“This commentary is from someone that goes to Catholic Mass every Sunday.”
Which is quite frankly very similar with the way he has in the past lambasted evangelicals. . . .
Then I think you missed his point to the extent that you cannot see why I disagree with it.
People are sensitive about others religious disposition we should think of the way we talk for the sake of tolerance, while at the same time I think there is no contradiction in calling you know who to live up to the principles of his profession of faith. If you claim to be something you should be it, and not fool around with saying one thing and doing another for whatever reason.
Damn, this is why we have separation of church state. I could care less what religion you are, when you a public official no matter what capacity…leave your private religion and personal beliefs at home.
If elected it is your responsibilty to protect and serve the citizens, all of them, not just those in your church….but for all people even rock worshipers.
Dear friends, lets think about the context of the argument, I would rather not use torture to protect our republic. Our WWII vetrans knew this did not work and followed the geneva conventions. I think that that is an extremist position: to use torture on another human being, and I would classify it as something conducted by state sponsors of terrorism.
if you can claim not to recognize dv’s purpose in his rhetorical
I have no reason to believe that DV meant anything other than what he wrote here. If I was unclear about his meaning, I would have asked him about that or expected him to clue me in after he read my reply to his post. (he is not typically shy about this kind of thing)
But DV will be back in here sometime tomorrow and he can weigh in on precisely what he means and we can count ourselves lucky to have saved ourselves the work of building a strawman.
Good for all us, Brian, that you could remind us that there is a real topic at hand. Damaging our moral authority is no way to protect a great nation. I worry (as do most military guys I know) that the signal that we have abandoned our own principles, much less those of the Geneva Convention, place our forces at great risk.
It is interesting that the Yoo memo is being released by the lawyers at the Pentagon. Cass, the military knows this sort of lawlessness puts our soldiers at much greater risk, you are right. One more example of how BushCo has undermined our military.
I’m starting a new group just for you steve. It’s called Catholics for Torture. Or maybe I will call it Christian when Convenient….
oh I just got an idea for a new post!