Comments on: No, It Wasn’t FOCA…

By: Don’t Ignore the Good.. « Vox Nova

Don’t Ignore the Good.. « Vox Nova — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:07:51 +0000

[...] in Obama’s first few days we get (i) the planned closure of the Guantanamo prison and the end of the torture techniques approved by the previous administration for the CIA; (ii) the S-CHIP decision; (ii) the energy [...]

By: Questions about President Obama’s executive orders on the incarceration and interrogation of detainees « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:26:00 +0000

[...] while some cheerleaders for Obama are already hailing an end to the gestapo-inspired “enhanced interrogration techniques”, there is much that suggests that the President’s gesture is more symbolic and an exercise in [...]

By: Gerald A. Naus

Gerald A. Naus — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:03:58 +0000

In my opinion, nobody can in good conscience join the American military, unless they’re willing to desert. Following orders, killing whoever a nut like Bush wants you to kill, how’s that Christian ? Or decent in general ? These volunteers have killed untold numbers of innocent people for a war without justification. How is that not immoral ? And, this will happen time and time again, given the belligerent nature of the USA. In the American military, soldiers will likely become murderers, unless they’re willing to desert.

By: Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP

Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:56:37 +0000

Last line should be “for a consequentialist ethics” rather than “against a…”

By: Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP

Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:53:43 +0000

Supposedly, “he” permits evil so a greater good can come from it, no ? [Gerald] I am not aware of this being a standard Catholic view of the problem of evil. This seems more in line with the Protestant versions of theodicy. [Poli] The idea that God permits some evil, but only that greater good may come from it is a standard Catholic view of theodicy, unless you don't count the Augustinian/Thomistic view as standard. Gerald's most conspicuous error (his argument is flawed in other ways as well) is in equating God's permitting of certain evils for a greater good (ST I-I, 22.2) and a human agent committing intrinsically evil actions for a supposed greater good. The distinction between 'causing' and 'permitting' is the foundation for Thomas' distinction between God's simple will and his permissive will. The more important distinction though, is between God's mode of action and our own. Some have objected to this traditional teaching, and had pretty compelling reasons to do so (though I think upholding the distinction is more compelling), but Gerald's point is compelling neither as an argument against this distinction with regard to God nor against a consequentialist ethic.

By: c matt

c matt — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:47:49 +0000

I agree with Michael that our military presence around the world is far too much. BUt then, it is our elected leaders, not the enlisted, that ultimate decide where we have a presence. So the fault for that lies more with Congress than anyone else.

By: Robert M

Robert M — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:28:42 +0000

Michael,
Thank you for clarifying. I think your characterization of military training as ‘discipleship in killing’ is very inaccurate — the military (at least in the US) has evolved considerably along with the society in general and please don’t assume that ‘Full Metal Jacket’ is in anyway remotely the ‘norm’ today. I assume you’re well-enough informed to know that.
That said I completely agree that at least one aspect of modern military training is preparing soldiers to kill, either directly or indirectly, under certain tightly defined circumstances. Much as (in fact almost exactly as) police / law enforcement people are. This is however only one part of their ‘discipleship’, which is far more one of ‘service’ than of killing.
I’m not justifying the lethality nor am I excusing it, but let’s not ignore the fact that a modern U.S. service person is far, far more likely to perform a humanitarian mission than kill anyone. And that at present, in the imperfect world and imperfect US, the miltiary is the only agency that can do a lot of that humanitarian stuff. It’s just not black and white. Trust me, the sociopaths or soldiers/Marines who think of themselves as ‘killing machines’ are exactly not the kind that intelligent military leaders want in their units in Iraq. WW II, yes, but that was a long time ago. Things are changing, but the military, like the Church or any big institution, takes a while to evolve.
RM

By: Robert M

Robert M — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:13:13 +0000

Gerald,
Some of them. And not all of them are ‘doing great’, I don’t recall saying that (though some are). For the most part they’re just people like you and me and Michael and all the rest, trying to make it through the world the best they can. But they do know what it means to be a Marine or a soldier. And you do not, however much you think you do.
You need to dial it down a notch, I thought the drugs were supposed to help with that. If you want to make your points (which I agree have some merit) try constructing logical arguments rather then flinging invective and ranting. You have clearly very little understanding of the issue, just a strong visceral emotional reaction and overly simplistic generalizations. Laudable, but hardly persuasive. There is a decent enough case to be made for what you are arguing here, but you’re not really making it right now.
RM

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:11:55 +0000

Then you would agree that it is quite possible that there is a distinction between ’soldier’ and ‘killer’?

Absolutely. Christians, for example, are called to be not killers but “Soldiers of Christ,” an image that many Saints believed called them to pacifism.

And that your relation’s experience is proof of nothing categorical in that regard, pther than the fact that it is possible not to perceive the distinction, either through error or misinformation?

I don’t consider my experience with this one person “proof,” but combining it with my relationship with other soldiers who testify to the same tendency in the united states military, I consider it unquestioningly strong evidence that this “tendency” is not a matter of soldiers not “recognizing a distinction” through “error or misinformation” but that it is an intrinsic part of u.s military training itself. If some soldiers perceive a “distinction,” it is perhaps in spite of their training (which is a discipleship in killing) and not because of it.

By: Gerald A. Naus

Gerald A. Naus — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:40:34 +0000

and how many of those semper fi guys killed people in Iraq ? Glad to hear they are doing great. I’m not saying every soldier joins so he can kill people. But it is part if the job description – kill whoever the president deems to be the enemy. Iraq was a friend now it’s “the enemy”. Military exists to develop and train people in the most efficient and effective ways of killing people, the enemy du jour. It is precisely because the Usa has such a vast military that it keeps attacking countries. And it us precisely US military presence around the globe that creates a steady supply of enemies who “hate us because we’re free”. Perpetual war for peace. If the US didn’t have a militaristic culture it wouldn’t have the most lethal military in the world and wouldn’t start wars and wouldn’t incur ever more enemies. Like the financial collapse, this is home made. Denying that is denying reality.

By: Robert M

Robert M — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:22:26 +0000

Then you would agree that it is quite possible that there is a distinction between ‘soldier’ and ‘killer’? And that your relation’s experience is proof of nothing categorical in that regard, pther than the fact that it is possible not to perceive the distinction, either through error or misinformation?
RM

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:57:15 +0000

Since I can produce any number of equal anecdotal examples of people who have gone through the same experience who do understand it, perhaps it would be more prudent to avoid the sweeping generalizations and just concede that it’s not quite as black and white as you think.

I wasn’t aware that I made a generalization. I believe my comment remained quite particular and concrete.