Ditto, IMO.

Read the post again, then, because I believe I dealt with it.

If as a Catholic you can’t agree with that, then as a Catholic, leave the state’s holidays to the people they matter to.

I do. But I also talk about why. Isn’t that part of the “freedom” you care so much about?

Memorial day should be celebrated because those who passed fought for our freedoms, including the freedom to be Catholics without intervention and control from the state they represent. That is the spirit of the American nation, and it is a good thing. Separate from Catholicism, yes, but good nonetheless. I don’t understand why you don’t realize that.

If as a Catholic you can’t agree with that, then as a Catholic, leave the state’s holidays to the people they matter to. Anything else is disrespectful to those who actually did give the ultimate sacrifice (I know how you disagree with that…) that they could give, and those who are without their loved ones.

I don’t know what you’ve prayed for today, but I do know that you are unable to have respect for those who have died for your rights to say nasty things under the guise of being a christian. Seriously, what was the point of this post, and the post from last year? How does your opinion and underlying hate have anything to do with Memorial day?

Thanks for your responses, I find them very interesting.

The only thing I’d dispute is what you said about the fundamental principles of the American founding – they have always been understood as applying to every human being on this planet. Of course, we have not always lived up to ideals as a people. But ideals they remain. As you likely see that as a seriously dubious contention, I will point to a book: Vindicating The Founders by Tom West if you are interested in pursuing the argument seriously.

I somehow knew you couldn’t keep yourself out of this. Why not just pray for the souls of those who have passed?

It’s probably bad blog etiquette to go to a blog and advise one of its writers that he or she should “stay out of it.” Just sayin’. Secondly, how could you possibly dare to know what I have and have not prayed for today?

As for the rest of your insulting comments, I’ll direct you (once again) to our comment policy. It seems like you still don’t “get it.” http://vox-nova.com/2007/12/03/comments/

Zach – I think the “commitment” to the equality of persons in the Declaration has at times been a force for good, but it also has been a source of evil, as it has never been understood as applying to every human person on this planet. It has been a source of exclusion and death just as much as it has been a source of “good.”

The modern nation-state is what I am referring to. Of course there were forms of political life that are related to and preceded the nation-state. Its development is part of a continuum of course. I am not certain that older forms of political organization, such as empires as you said, were necessarily “worse,” as it is clear that we are still now living in the midst of empire.

What makes you think that when the nation-state is called into question and perhaps given up on, something superior like a love of local community will take its place?

I don’t think that small, local forms of political life will necessarily or inevitably emerge when that nation-state project dies. But I think they should. I also think that they can emerge in some ways now and as a way to contribute to the death of the nation-state.

What of the libido dominandi? Where does that fit into your politics?

It “fits in” as a central reality that is to be resisted by Christian communities.

Would you argue that our national, philosophical commitment to the fundamental equality of persons as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and enforced by our national Constitution has not been a force for good in the world?

Also, I ask this in all humility because I have no idea, but how is it that you can assert that the nation-state is only 200 years old? Maybe it’s articulation and philosophical defense was given 200 years ago, but surely something similar in structure existed prior to 200 years ago? And surely this older form of the nation-state (probably best called an empire) was worse for humanity and the advancement of the “universal destination of goods”?

What makes you think that when the nation-state is called into question and perhaps given up on, something superior like a love of local community will take its place? What of the libido dominandi? Where does that fit into your politics?

[Insults have been deleted]