Iraq

[CelestialBody]

 

[8ball]

What the Pope thinks is moral means squat to me. So, yes.

 

[JazzManJim]

Sure I can claim that. Hussein has killed 1.5 million people. He is still torturing and killing people right now.

The Vatican was also on the wrong side of the Holocaust. They have very little moral credibility to me when it comes to denouncing murderous dictators.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[T.J. Jackson]

Inquisition mean anything to anyone?

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[JazzManJim]

Different Pope, this is the one who apologized for the previous one's stance, if I'm not mistaken, but onto the ArchBishop of Canterbury. Any Anglicans gonna check in with their throughts?

I'm not up for a political debate. Just want to absorb a little bit of the mood around here...

Yes, of course it's a different Pope. The point is that the Church itself has a poor track record when it comes to this. One Pope makes a very small dent in a very large organizational intertia.

The point I'm making is that claiming a moral imperative does not depend on the words of any given religious leader, but on the actions of the person perpetrating the evil. I consider such mass slaughter to be highly immoral no matter if the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury declare it is or not.

 

[Uber Sparky]

What 'I' think is 'moral' is what counts to me.

I think leaving potentially millions of people at risk of death - under an unstable tyranny (and that's putting in mildly) - is by far more immoral than - the immorality of attempting to liberate them and save those lives.

The lesser of the two immoralities - is the war - the greater immorality is 'letting the situation - be.'

 

[T.J. Jackson]

Catholic Chruch has a history of not doing moral things. Going way back to it's beginnings. I take the Popes stance with a grain of salt. If he can't see how much Saddam abuses his own people and that the world would be better off without him then I would disregard the Pope in this case. (I suppose I should have said this in the first place)

 

[Uber Sparky]

PS - fuck the Pope and the church he rode in on.

Can he even possibly be aware of the bed in which he is dieing?

 

[T.J. Jackson]

and what JMJ said.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[JazzManJim]

Hmm, so the actions of Bush maybe viewed with the same scrutiny years from now because he has (whether legitimately or not) the authority to set the agenda for a institution of voters just as Pope John II has for an institution of believers?

No, of course not. The two positions derive power from different places and have vastly different levels of authority. The President derives power from those underneath him - the citizens of the country who have elected him and the Legislature (also elected) who provide dozens of checks and balances. A President may make any number of edicts, but they are hardly considered absolute.

The Pope on the other hand derives his authority from above the laity and is not directly answerable to them for any decision or edict he delivers. Whether they believe him or not, the laity has no organizational power to change the church's stand on any given issue. The Pope's decrees are absolute.

 

[Expertise]

I really don't have any reason to value their opinions. War is never a moral act and anyone who tells you it is has never seen it up close. That being said war is often necessary

Ugly,hatefull,frightening, a tremendous waste of resources and lives. But necessary.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Uber Sparky]

Yeah I guess Popes and...

religons are necessary too.

Too bad.

They, as moralistically elevated as they claim to be - are the root cause of many a war.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Uber Sparky]

No - fuck that shit...

This should all be about...

Guns, money and freedom - at the lowest possible human cost.

And nothing more.

Morals don't put gas in my tank.