George Strickland comments on editorial by Dr. Bouteneff

110 thoughts on “George Strickland comments on editorial by Dr. Bouteneff”

1. I apologize if this is out of place, since it’s only indirectly related to the above post, but I don’t know quite where to put this; the question is mostly for Fr Hans.

   From elsehere on this website:

   What then is a Christian to make of conservatism? The danger, it would seem,
   is not in conserving, for anyone may have a vocation to care for precious
   things, but in conservative ideology, which sets forth a picture of these
   things at variance with the faith. The same is true of liberalism. From time
   to time Christians may find themselves in tactical alliance with
   conservatives, just as with liberals, over particular policies, precepts,
   and laws. But they cannot be in strategic alliance, because their reasons
   for these stands are different; they are living in a different vision. For
   our allies’ sake as well as our own, it behooves us to remember the
   difference. We do not need another Social Gospel-just the Gospel.

   In a previous essay, “The Problem With Liberalism” (FT, March), I described
   liberalism as a bundle of acute moral errors, with political consequences
   that grow more and more alarming as these errors are taken closer and closer
   to their logical conclusions. Conservatism may be described as another such
   bundle. The parallel is not perfect, for American culture is balanced at the
   top of a liberal ridge and is only now considering the descent. Because
   conservative moral errors have had less time to work among the powers and
   principalities, we cannot always discern their political consequences. But
   we can anticipate their fruits by their roots. The moral errors of
   conservatism are just as grave as those of its liberal opponents.

   The Problem With Conservatism

   Since it’s on this website, I’m assuming that it accurately (if only generally) reflects the perspective of the webmaster, Fr Hans. Since I agree with both the sentiments described above and those in the Dr Bouteneff piece, I don’t quite understand why the above quote would be acceptable and Dr B would be criticized for “moral equivalence.”

   Respectfully,

   Christopher Parks

2. Never mind. luke has just posted the same thing in another thread….

3. Christopher, that’s a great question, and I’m glad someone took the time to read those essays. I wish more people would and we could have a good debate about them here.

   One needs to take both essays in their entirety into account. Budziszewski points out that despite conservatism’s errors, it approaches more nearly the traditional Christian vision. I doubt anyone on this site would identify either liberalism or conservatism with that vision; as one of the conservative readers, I know that conservatism brings up fewer contradictions to Christian faith than does liberalism.

4. Read my piece Responding to Dr. Bouteneff on the main page where I explain it more.

5. WADR, my confusion stemmed from reading that very piece. Given the above cited page, I didn’t understand why you would accuse him of “moral equivalence.” Budziszewski would seem to be guilty of the same thing.

   If I’m missing something, could you expand or point me to a particular place in your response that addresses this? After reading all three pieces, I don’t see the affinity between your criticisms and the Budziszewski article.

6. The last two paragraphs of Mr. Stickland’s essay describes the minefield the Church steps into when it enters the political arena. It also explains why many people (like me) submit gladly to the teachings of the church on matters of “personal” morality but bristle with irritation when it attempts to dictate my “political” choices.

7. “The last two paragraphs of Mr. Stickland?s essay describes the minefield the Church steps into when it enters the political arena. It also explains why many people (like me) submit gladly to the teachings of the church on matters of ?personal? morality but bristle with irritation when it attempts to dictate my ?political? choices.”

   Is that your way of saying, say, that you are personally opposed to abortion, but. . .?

8. Nevski: Not really. Live and let live doesn’t apply to abortion. A consistent ethic of life requires that I support initiatives leading to a sharp reduction in the number of abortions performed in this country. Also, I belive that the central argument and legal linchpin of Roe v. Wade (that in the first trimester the fetus is not a person) is untenable, and will be increasingly more difficult to defend.

   The real question for me is how to we best reach the goal of fewer abortions. I don’t think you can end them by simply outlawing them, because that may instead result only in creating an illegal, unsafe underground abortion industry that adds to the tragedy of abortion by causing injury to the women as well. Unless you change underlying attitudes and behavior that result in unwanted pregnancies the tragedy will persist.

   What’s needed, I believe, is a long, steady campaign of public education and public health initiatives combined with a gradual tightening of the laws. These initiatives would include responsible sexual behavior education directed at young people, mandatory adoption counseling, tax credits and incentives for adopting parents, stipends and support for pregnant single women, ending insurance and Medicaid coverage for repeat abortions, then all non-medically neccesary abortion. I think anti-smoking campaigns which have combined public education with financial disincentives and more restictive laws to successfully lower smoking rates, provide a model for how we might proceed. Also we cannot forget to explicitly state the moral imperitive – that we want to be a society that values life and chooses life.

   I’m proud to be a Democrat, but am embarrased by my party’s lack of moral urgency on this issue.

9. Dean, you are probably correct that simply outlawing abortion would not work. History shows us that outlawing any activity driven by strong carnal desires does not work. However, just education about the out comes of abortion will not be sufficient either. A great deal of education about life affirming sexual choices would have to be included. Given the political climate and the the drive by the extreme hedonists to have societal and state approval of all types of sexual behavior, such education is unlikely to be allowed through government contolled channels or mass media (unlike smoker education).

   The question for me is how does the Church mount an effective moral witness in matters of sexual choice and moral sexual behavior when Christians show little difference from the general population in such matters.

   We must destroy the growing social paradigm that reads human = sexual expression. By the way Robert Bork’s piece of the adverse effects of legalizing homosexual marriage is a great critique that does not resort to or is even based in a theological context. We need to find similar language to communicate the Church’s witness that does not compromise the truth.

10. Michael: You ask all the right questions. Why have our politicians failed to make any progress in reducing the number of abortions and what can the church do better to address this issue?

    In part, I would blame the divisive, polarizing, emotionally inflamed nature of the debate. It has caused our politicians, who lack courage and are guided by polls and handlers to retreat into “safe” unthreatening positions. Neither Democrats or Republicans have the backbone to stand up or say anything displeasing to the extremists in their own parties.

    What can the Church do better? I would use as a model the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadin who served as Catholic prelate in Chicago during the eithies and early nineties, and was one of the most beloved religious figures that city has ever seen. Bernadin upheld the anti-abortion position of his church but also wove it into a doctrine he called “the consistent ethic of life” that steered clear of politics and culture war. Bernadin’s approach was gentle and compassionate, but also firm and unyielding in his defense of those who could not defend themselves. He didn’t browbeat or attack, instead he appealed to the conscience and soul of the listener.

    Instead of attacking John Kerry or denying him communion, Christian churches should ask him straight out, “You say you want abortion to become rare? Thats wonderful. Now what are you prepared to do to make that happen?”

11. I just read Fr Jacobse’s response to Peter Bouteneff’s “Reflections on How to Vote” article, and I must say that I was rather puzzled. How is it that stating “it is not at all clear which party has a better platform” is the same as “constructing a moral equivalence”? It seems to me that, in his evident disappointment that Bouteneff does not endorse a particular candidate or discuss the specifics of each party’s platform, Fr Jacobse concludes that Bouteneff is discouraging voting or what Fr Jacobse calls “active engagement with the culture” through the democratic process.

    If I read Professor Bouteneff’s article correctly, he very specifically highlights that we must do both these things, unless, as he says, we are canonically prohibited or our decision not to is “conscious and deliberate, and the result of prayerful consideration.” Again, if my reading is correct, he is advocating an approach to the democratic process which focusses “not [on] conservatism or liberalism, but [on] truth,” not on identification with a political party, but with voting in a manner consistent with Orthodox belief.

    Fr Jacobse is rightly opposed to the type of equivocation that can lead to entropy or the inability to make moral distinctions. However, in his haste to condemn it, he seems to find it in Bouteneff’s article as something espoused. He accuses him of “the posturing of the detached observer” (evidently missing or ignoring his conclusion “This doesn’t take us off the hook, for we must choose.”) and mentions his “assertion that the differences between the parties are inconsequential in the end, or that the failure of either party to be absolutely consistent in applying the moral precepts of the Christian tradition makes voting superfluous” (when in fact he asserts no such thing). He seems more inclined to (incorrectly) identify Bouteneff’s position with that of those repulsed by the “absolute and unchanging character” of Orthodox principles than to respond to his assertion that “our approach to ethics and the canons provides a unique blending of absolute principles with particular, personal applications which can never be branded as sheer conservatism.”

    The irony is that, in many respects, Professor Bouteneff and Fr Jacobse seem to agree on many essential points, such as, for example, the necessity “to care about, to arrive at, and defend principles in terms of our fundamental beliefs” (Bouteneff’s words) or that “faith must inform politics, not the other way around” (Fr Jacobse’s words). It is a pity that, in his haste to state his own answers, Fr Jacobse should so misread Bouteneff’s clarifying of the questions.

12. My argument with Dr. Bouteneff is that his piece doesn’t say anything regarding the ideas being fought over in the culture war (of which politics is a part) that have very different moral and philosophical starting points, and thus cultural ramifications if they are applied. On some of them (culture of death issues mostly), the difference between the parties is very clear.

    What I want from Dr. Bouteneff is a choice, and a rationale for that choice, rather than the simple exhortation “we must choose.” There is no virtue in this exhortation since the responsibility is already assumed (why write the article otherwise?). If he chooses not to choose, that should be explained as well.

    The equivocation occurs through the employment of the phrase “lesser of two evils” as the reason by which a choice is avoided and only generalizations affirmed. The truth is however, that there is a world of difference between the parties and a Bush win will result in radically different policies than a Kerry win, or vice versa. Bouteneff can go either way (Orthodox can be Democrat or Republican), but this ostensible third way — the way of the detached observer — clouds the very real distinctions that exist between the ideas and their ramifications, and thus parties.

    The phrase “lessor of two evils” IOW, is a cliche, not a tenable moral construct (moral as opposed to philosophical or political because: 1) Bouteneff teaches dogmatic theology; 2) evil is a term of morality; 3) the intended audience was Orthodox Christians), and should not have been used. The logic of the entire piece stands (or in this case falls) by it.

    If Bouteneff had kept the essay to “clarifying questions,” it would have been of limited usefulness, but useful nonetheless. To posit detachment as a legitimate alternative however, requires more, much more, than the weak use of a weak cliche. Bouteneff implicitly posited an answer to his questions, but it muddied rather than clarified the waters.

    One final point. I found the paragraph about some Christians not agreeing with the moral tradition on certain questions revealing. Why this should factor into the discussion Bouteneff never made clear, but he seems to feel that the existence of opposition indicates the problem is ours (Orthodox who hold to the moral tradition) rather than those who oppose parts of it. He also implies that his discomfort with this conflict should be ours as well. I, obviously, don’t agree. This discomfort may explain why he kept to generalizations.

    Bouteneff’s piece only encourages a continual wringing of the hands. Contemplation about pressing social questions is good and necessary, but it is never an end. Choices must be made (as Bouteneff affirms), but he seems unwilling to make them.

13. I’m quite willing to make choices. I just haven’t seen it as my role to indicate what choice I’m making, and that’s because, as noted, “Bouteneff teaches dogmatic theology,” and if Bouteneff is voting Bush, or Kerry, or for no-one at all, then he must think that’s “the Orthodox party” or “the Orthodox approach.” And my chief point was, and remains, that there are several arguable Orthodox approaches to this election. I’m well aware, after all the blogging and angry mail, that many Orthodox are outraged by that opinion. From other reactions I’ve gotten, though, it’s clear that many Orthodox agree with my point. (The very variety of response in fact substantiates my point.)

14. Dean, you say many good things in your post. But I still think it’s backing off the main issue to put the words (I paraphrase) “That’s wonderful that you want abortion to be rare” into the mouths of the churches. It’s unrealistic to think that the churches would consider anything but the complete cessation of abortion to be wonderful. A step in the right direction, perhaps, depending on the circumstances, but not wonderful.

15. These are fair and valid points. However, they are different than ones you cited in the article. My complaint lies with the “lesser of two evils” approach which mutes the very real and important differences in ideas held by the parties, particularly concerning culture of death issues. If there are indeed several “Orthodox approaches” to this election, outlining those approaches, even superficially, would have been better than the implicit conclusion that voting is essentially pointless.

    (My hunch is that the varied emails you received confirms this point, not the one that suggests voting is pointless. Otherwise, why bother to respond?)

    I managed to get a copy of the Fr. Garvey article you mentioned upstream. All in all a thoughtful piece. He dismissed the Republicans too easily (“depressing”), but since the main argument concerned Democratic captivity to the cultural left, it can be overlooked. I don’t agree with his resignation, but the honesty from someone on the left was good to see (and portends good things for the Democrats if they would follow his example). Nat Henthoff is the only other liberal I have seen do this.

16. Who said voting is pointless?

17. Sorry — I’ll go a little further than that last question — the exchanges of views on this site have been helpful to me in many ways. They’ve certainly helped point out some of the structural problems of my original essay and subsequent rejoinder (it might indeed have been better to outline, even superficially, possible “Orthodox approaches”), as well as the problems and limitations of the cliche “lesser of two evils,” which Fr. Hans has dwelt on now quite a bit. Although some folks understood me very clearly, it’s apparent that I gave off some mixed signals. For example, I don’t at all believe voting is pointless. Although I am understanding better why some people would take the route of not voting, that’s not my position at all. But the guy I’m voting for does take some really wrong positions — they both do — which brings us back to that cliche!

    In any event, while I do believe there is some real disagreement, there seems to be also an increasing convergence as Fr. Hans and I are conversing on this site. I don’t think that’s just wishful thinking. In any case I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify my own thinking.

18. Fr. Hans writes: “My complaint lies with the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach which mutes the very real and important differences in ideas held by the parties, particularly concerning culture of death issues.”

    I assume “culture of death” here mostly means abortion. I suppose Terry Schiavo counts as “culture of death” even though most of the poor lady’s brain is literally gone, and I suppose Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law is also culture of death. But since the start of the program in 1998 that has involved only 171 out of over 53,000 deaths in the same time period, around .3 percent. These were people with a median age of 70 and mostly dying of cancer. (How much better it would have been for those folks to have died according to the “culture of life,” perhaps either screaming in pain or delusional and hallucinating from morphine, eventually wasting away to nothing.)

    From what I understand culture of death does not include the 50 percent or so of all pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion, since those are natural occurrences. Culture of death does not include over 400,000 annual deaths related to smoking. (I suppose if Democratic candidates received 68 percent of tobacco contributions it would be part of the culture of death.) Culture of death does not include all the millions of children around the world who die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. Culture of death certainly does not include the over-1,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, nor does it include any Iraqis. And I am virtually certain that culture of death does not include the Bush administration’s attempt to develop a “bunker buster” nuclear weapon, that would further blur the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and serve as an encouragement for other countries to develop nuclear weapons. The culture of death surely includes Iraq’s chemical weapons, but does not include U.S. assistance in obtaining those weapons.

    Fr. Hans notes that “ideological homosexuality anyway, a kind of death wish, a celebration of non-creative prowess,” so I suppose that is culture of death. But surely all the celibate Orthodox monks, also failing to procreate, are not part of the culture of death. Culture of death seems to include birth control for the Catholics, but not for the Orthodox. Culture of death absolutely does not include the death penalty, especially in the Great State of Texas. And if anything is certain, it is that culture of death does not include the 18,000 or so people who die every year in the U.S. as a result of not having health insurance.

    The problem with the whole concept of the “culture of death” is that the deck is stacked from the very start. So “culture of death” is one of those interesting concepts that can mean whatever one wants it to mean. But somehow . . . it mostly seems to include issues near and dear to the heart of conservative Christians. The inclusion or exclusion of various issues seems to be based only on ideology. While the case of Terri Schiavo is trumpeted everywhere, some poor wretch who actually has an intact brain is being hidden from the Red Cross and beaten to death in secret in a U.S. detention camp after the Bush administration decides that maybe the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply after all.

    The problem is not the “lesser of two evils,” but what counts as evil in the first place. All that the “culture of death” proves is that you can control the debate simply by creating a distinction that is largely artificial and ideological.

19. It strikes me that what Fr. Jacobse is saying can be summarized by what the Catholic Bishop Charles J. Chaput said recently, as reported in a New York Times article :

    “In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion. “If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?” he asked. “And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes.”

    That strikes me as a statement that the Orthodox could clearly agree with. However, one could be led, by Prof. Bouteneff’s article and comments here, to wonder if, in fact, for Orthodox Christians “there are several arguable Orthodox approaches” in which voting for someone who is an abortion absolutist is not, in fat, cooperating in evil.

20. Yes, Daniel hits the point. I’m working on a piece that draws this out.

    Jim, I don’t have time for a point by point refutation that your editorial requires. You make a lot of questionable assertions, such as that euthanasia is a form of medical treatment, etc. To bring it back to basics: your approach is powerless to stand against egregious violations of human rights — such as partial birth abortion, or whatever new practice that culture of death ideologues might dream up. The slippery slope is real.

21. Daniel: If a President promoted false or dubious information in order to launch a war that against a country that never threatened the United States, and if thousands of people, including women and children, died in that unnecessary war and the mismanaged occupation that followed, and if thousands of American families lost husbands, fathers, sons and brothers and had to endure the pain of those losses forever, and if thousands of good American men came home with amputated limbs and brain damage from head injuries, isn’t that a “sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion” also?

22. Other definitions of “cooperating with evil”:

    – Dropping explosive ordinance with blast ranges of several hundred yards into crowded residential areas full of Iraqi civilians, http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm
    – shooting Iraqi civilians because “its easier to shoot first, ask questions later,
    – leaving Iraq littered with cluster bombs (which to a child look like toys) and highly radioactive undepleted uranium residue.
    – Rounding up Iraqi civilians and taking them without trial or hearing to Abu Ghraib prison where they are subjected to physical beatings and sexually humiliating psychological torture. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

    What about the man responsible for all of the above, George W. Bush?

23. Dean,

    One of things that bothers me about the “pro-life” movement is that its emphasis on the “sanctity of life” all-too often does not seem balanced within the hierarchy of values the Church presents to us. All too often it seems reactionary to the undervaluement of life at home, and then attempts instead to “overvalue” it. It then seems to become a form of nationalism cloaked as a moral crusade (I suppose most forms of nationalism are cloaked as moral crusades though). If an understanding of the “sanctity of life” is narrowed into a special political interest group, then the “sanctity of life” loses its meaning. I think the Church should be highly suspicious of the “pro-life” movement, because it does seems prone to nationalism. Certainly, the Church has all-too-often struggled with ideologies of nationalism in Her past as well.

24. Stephen, could you unpack this for us? Not too sure how all the elements relate(balance, undervaluement of life at home, nationalism, moral crusade) so that “‘sanctity of life’ loses its meaning.”

25. Stephen – That’s why the only ethical approach that makes sense to me is the “Consistent Ethic of Life” model championed by the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadin.

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/consistentethicmaster.html

    The Consistent Ethic of Life does not mean that all moral issues pertaining to life are of equal moral gravity or urgency. However it does mean that the same regard for the sanctity of human life that motivates us to want to end abortions should also motivate us to work for peace, and end to poverty and disease, and protection of our environment. Conversely, the regard for the sanctity of human life that motivates us to work for peace, and end to poverty and disease, etc. should also motivate us to want to sharply reduce abortion.

    As Father Frank Pavone, who has been quoted on this web site before, writes:

    “What links the many issues of human life is that such life is sacred: it comes from God, it belongs to God, it returns to God. All human beings have equal dignity, and nobody may ever directly destroy the innocent. These principles apply whether we are talking about abortion, capital punishment, war, poverty, drug abuse, street violence, or any other of the multitude of problems we face in society.

    But that does not mean that these issues are morally equivalent. Each issue, along with the overall principles which we have already stated, has its own particular principles and moral considerations which need to be brought into the discussions whenever one treats of that particular issue. These particularities could conceivably result in divergent opinions about what specific policies should be implemented, while at the same time those who disagree acknowledge the same essential principles.

    Nor do all of these issues constitute an emergency of equal gravity and urgency. Some do more damage and claim more victims than others.”

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/consethcommentary.html

26. This exchange is getting more and more interesting. Fr. Hans, I don’t think you’re doing justice to Jim’s points. I hope that you find the time to engage what he is saying. It’s not enough simply to invoke the threat of the dread slippery slope.

27. Fr. Hans writes: “You make a lot of questionable assertions, such as that euthanasia is a form of medical treatment, etc. To bring it back to basics: your approach is powerless to stand against aggregious violations of human rights ? such as partial birth abortion, or whatever new practice that culture of death ideologues might dream up. The slippery slope is real.”

    Let’s look at physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as practiced in Oregon. A fraction of one percent of deaths. Since 1998 171 total cases — compare that to Oregon’s 500+ suicides *per year*. No significant increase in PAS deaths since the inception of the program. No clamor to expand the criteria.

    Now I suppose that this program could morph into something horrible, in the same sense that anything could. In other words, the slippery slope is always a threat with anything. But there’s no more indication that Oregon is going to start euthanizing people wholesale than there is that we’re going to start executing shoplifters.

    The flip side of PAS is that the program provides vastly less reason why a terminally ill person would commit suicide, not an uncommon occurrence. And there is vastly less reason why a physician would provide a lethal prescription “under the table.” Prior to PAS it was a commonly known fact that physicians would issue a prescription for “sleeping pills,” that would be used for other purposes. There is no reason for that now. Many of the lethal PAS prescriptions that are issued are not used, but patients feel great comfort that the prescription is available if needed.

    Another benefit of the PAS program is that a PAS request to a physician can initiate a conversation on larger care issues. In other words, if patient makes that request, why is that? Is pain control not working, or some other issue that can be addressed? Another benefit in Oregon is that physicians are much more sensitive to pain management issues in terminally ill patients.

    Thus the PAS program provides several benefits to terminally ill patients, whether or not they elect to exercise that option. Inasmuch as it can be said to cause harm, it harms those who have freely elected to exercise that option, based on the program criteria, if you consider the avoidance of suffering at the end of life a harm.

    All things considered, I have a hard time seeing PAS as part of the “culture of death.” And this is what bothers me about the whole “culture of death” thing. It is just a label applied according to certain ideological criteria that are sometimes completely divorced from the reality on the ground.

28. Jim and I have been through this several times already. I’ll answer in more detail later.

29. Fr. Hans writes: “You make a lot of questionable assertions, such as that euthanasia is a form of medical treatment, etc. To bring it back to basics: your approach is powerless to stand against egregious violations of human rights ? such as partial birth abortion, or whatever new practice that culture of death ideologues might dream up. The slippery slope is real.”

    [Apologies if this gets posted twice, but I tried to post something like this yesterday and it didn’t go through.]

    With *any* social policy the slippery slope is always a risk. But that in itself does not constitute an argument against the policy, even if there are individual cases that fall outside of what we would consider to be acceptable outcomes. The key is to look at the actual results of the policy, not to what the results would be were the policy taken to an extreme.

    The concept of the “culture of death” is meant to be informative — it is intended to be a meaningful categorization of certain arguments, policies, or ways of thinking. The problem is that there is little consistency in how that label is applied. In other words a social policy can be part of the culture of death based on the actual results of a policy, or even based on wild speculation of what would happen were a policy taken to an extreme. In addition to being used to characterize general policies, it is also used to characterize individual situations. Thus, for example, a patient refusing medical treatment personally or through a proxy is presumably not part of the culture of death, but the Terri Schiavo case is part of the culture of death.

    As actually used, the “culture of death” label functions as a kind of show-stopper — a kind of moral trump card. Once the label “culture of death” has been applied to a situation, then nothing more need be said. The problem is that being satisfied with the label, we ignore the actual details of the situation or policy in question.

    Take, for example, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon. Implemented in 1998, 171 terminally ill people have used the provisions of the PAS program to end their lives. This out of over 53,000 deaths from other causes that have occurred in this period. The median age of the PAS patient is 70, and most suffer from terminal cancer. Since the inception of the policy there has been no dramatic increase in the number of deaths. There has been no expansion of the policy, nor does there seem to be any interest at all in expanding it.

    There have been several beneficial effects from the PAS program. First, physicians are no longer tempted to write lethal prescriptions of “sleeping pills” for terminally ill patients, outside of the boundaries of the program. Second, many people believe that PAS has actually extended life for many terminally patients through offering them an “out,” if they need it. Suicide by terminally ill people is not uncommon, especially as they begin to fear a loss of control. Many people who obtain prescriptions through the PAS program do not use them, but they find great comfort in the fact that the prescription is available if things get bad enough. Third, an interesting by-product of the PAS program is a greater emphasis on pain control and palliative care in end-of-life cases.

    Nonetheless, PAS is said to be part of the “culture of death.” But the PAS program offers terminally ill patients a way to avoid tremendous pain and suffering if they choose that option. It restores to them some measure of peace of mind, through having control at the end of life. If provides patients and physicians the opportunity to discuss the effectiveness and options related to palliative care, as the PAS request naturally prompts these conversations. The “culture of death” label ignores these real benefits and focuses on the non-real problems that would result from some kind of extreme implementation of the PAS program — an implementation that has no support whatsoever in Oregon. The “culture of death” label denounces the slippery slope, even as there has been no slippery slope. It unfairly compares uncontrolled euthanasia in other times and places with Oregon’s highly-controlled and patient-initiated program. In other words, it ignores what actually happens and focuses on what could happen. More importantly, to the real terminally ill patient for whom palliative care and pain control have failed the “culture of death” label offers nothing but ideology.

30. I would much rather support a presidential candidate who believes that all, born and unborn alike, are worthy of God’s gift of freedom and liberty than a presidential candidate who believes that brown skinned foreigners should have to live under tyranny while the UN dithers and who ensures that children in the womb receive no protection whatsoever.

    Actually, Dean, there are many things that I should confess. If you think I am cooperating with evil and should be forbidden from receiving communion because I support Pres. Bush, then so be it. Nothing I write here would change your mind.

    And, quite honestly, I find the position that those who support the war against Islamofascism and the liberation of two nations from tyrannical rule in course of this war as cooperating with evil, rather irrational and, therefore, very difficult to respond to.

31. Dan – I never said you should be forbidden from communion. I only wanted you to consider that the charge of disregard for human life can be directed at both candidates. To my knowlege John Kerry isn’t responsible for a single abortion, but we know that George W. Bush is responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths and greivous injuries in Iraq.

    Since I have never heard a Catholic prelate say that pro-choice Republicans like Guiliani and Schwarzenegger should be denied communion I can only assume that they are using religion as cover for their partisan attacks and political agenda. It is shameful really to use the Church in this manner.

    The Dueffler report makes clear Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction on after 1991. The September 11th commission has stated clearly that there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Of all the nations in the middle-east, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was one of the most secular and least “Islamofascist”. There are other dictators just as evil as Saddam Hussein was in other countries of the world and some of them America calls it’s allies.

    Read: “US Looks Away as New Ally Tortures Islamists” by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian (London), 26 May 2003:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html, or
    http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/uzbek052103.htm

    “Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

    The US condemned this repression for many years. But since September 11 rewrote America’s strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington’s new best friend in the region.”

    The invasion of Iraq was criminal, unjust immoral and obscene. The motivation for the war was oil and the desire to establish a base in the middle-east to protect its flow to the United States. Ironically, the desire to control foreign sources of oil was the primary reason Japan attacked the United States in the Pacific in 1941.

32. Read the entire Duelfer Report, not just the parts that satisfy the conclusions you’ve already made.

    Those on the political Right, who have supported this front in the war against the Islamofascists, have to respond to the failure to find completed storehouses of functional and ready to launch WMDs. That much is true, and I think many have done so.

    Those on the political Left have to respond, at least, to the following:
    Saddam’s Oil for Food bribes for weapons, weapons program material, and other material banned under the numerous UN resolutions.
    The UN, French, German, Russian, Chinese, et al, violation of the numerous UN resolutions, which enriched Saddam Hussein and his pathetic prodigy, Uday and Qusay Hussein.
    Saddam’s clear intent to do away with the sanctions.
    Saddam’s clear intent to reconstitute WMD programs, as shown in the Duelfer Report.
    Saddam’s connections with terrorism, as shown in the 9/11 Report.
    Saddam’s use of WMDs against his own people.
    Saddam’s numerous human rights violations, as seen in the mass graves discovered on an almost weekly basis and as reported by the survivors of Saddam’s torturers.
    I don’t think anyone on the Left, except perhaps Christopher Hitchens, are honestly dealing with any of these points. Unless, of course, you count “Yeah, but Bush Lied!!!” as honestly dealing with these points.

    Fr. Hans, my apologies for not sticking to only one or two points.

33. Dean, just shouting your assertions over and over again as to the evil intentions of President Bush, does not make them true.

34. Michael – I’m sorry. I watched the movie Fahrenheit 911 last weekend. There was a segment that showed Iraqi parents lifting the bodies of their dead children out of the rubble that had once been their homes before they were destroyed by US military aircraft. Knowing that my tax dollars helped pay for that was extremely disturbing.

35. Dean, I respect and share your distress over the Iraqi children killed during the bombing. I would ask you also to take into account those Iraqis–children and adults alike–tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein during the years when the erstwhile guarantor of good behavior on Saddam’s part (the United Nations) was lining its pockets with kickbacks from Saddam while he rebuilt the power of his regime with “humanitarian” aid. Did you see the photos in Newsweek of the man who had been tortured to death with electric burns and shocks? Do you remember the stories of the men being fed feet first into plastic shredders so they could know what was happening to them as they died? I’m not saying you don’t care about them; I am sure you do. But if you are going to express outrage about senseless death, look at both sides.

    At least the children killed by US bombing were casualties of war, not the US’s targets (the US targeted Saddam’s regime). This, of course, doesn’t mitigate the tragedy, but it contrasts sharply with the fact that Saddam did indeed target his own people. Mourn the results of US actions, but condemn more sharply the results of Saddam’s. War is hell, even a war of liberation. But cruel, bloody tyranny is a greater hell.

36. Daniel writes: “Those on the political Left have to respond, at least, to the following . . . ”

    Your statement presumes that it is only “the Left” who oppose the war in Iraq. But this is not the case. What has happened is that in place of a serious foreign policy the Bush administration has adopted a wierd philosophy — a kind of swaggering cowboy philosophy based on the president’s self-made persona — driven by neocon ideology, that is offensive to and rejected by both the Left and by many traditional conservatives.

    Whether Saddam and his sons were evil dudes is utterly irrelevant. What Saddam “wanted” to do or “might” have done are irrelevant. None of this constitutes a justification for the a large-scale military invasion and potentially long-term occupation of Iraq.

    I would direct your attention to a couple of essays by Paul Schroeder in the American Conservative magazine:

    Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War – October 2002
    http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html

    The War Bin Laden Wanted – October 2004
    http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/feature.html

    Look through the web site archive and you will find a large number of similar articles.

    Read these and then consider whether opposition to the war is solely the property of the Left.

37. Fahrenheit 9/11 is designed to appeal to the emotions and to get people upset, to incite the passions. As Orthodox Christians committed to the principals of unseen warfare, we should be highly suspicious of any vehicle whose primary purpose is to arouse passions. Simply on a practical level, it is tough to make good decisions when emotionally overwrought. Such is the case even when the material is as honest and non-manipulated as humanly possible. Given Michael Moore?s oft-stated antipathy towards George Bush, he could not produce an accurate movie of the situation even if he wanted to.

    So many opportunities for the introduction of bias are involved in the production of an historical narrative, it is literally impossible to produce an unbiased account. The stronger one?s feelings on the matter, the more biased the outcome–(same goes for the Swift Boat Veterans).

    One big difference I see between the Michael Moore and the Swift Boat Veterans is that Michael Moore is a professional gadfly and is continuing to make large amounts of money promoting his point of view. The Swift Boat Veterans are not, to my knowledge.

    If John Kerry?s testimony in 1971 was true, he needed to come forward as he did. If it was not true and he was aware that the testimony was untrue, then he is a reprehensible liar who has no business being commander in chief or in any position of public trust. There seems to be a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that the litany of war crimes he recited is, at best, highly exaggerated. My question to you, Dean, is why are you not as critical of the war crimes John Kerry has confessed to directly and personally committing as you are about the alleged war crimes of President Bush?

38. I am well aware that the Isolationist Right hated the Iraqi front in the war against Islamofascism as much the hard Left. If anything is “weird” it is the joining of these two political elements. Or is that so weird after all?

    There is clearly a strong strain of antisemitism running through the Hard Left. This topic has been addressed by several, including Phyllis Chesler , who considers herself on the Left side of the political spectrum.

    On the Isolationist Right, as well, one gets a strong sense of antisemitism. All one need do is look at the primary “neocon” examples the Isolationist Right uses when that topic comes up; the names are invariably Jewish. In fact this tendency for some to use Neoconservative as another word for Jewish led one Jewish writer to pen, “Don’t call me a Neocon, unless you’re a friend” .

    As for Paul Schroeder’s views, which include this idea that Osama bin Laden wanted the United States to fight back. Well, that is so patently absurd that it could only come from someone living within the sheltered ivory towers of academia, where one never has to be responsible for the foolishness one presents. Or, as George Orwell is said to have observed, there are some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. The very reason al Qeade and other terrorist groups, and the countries that support these groups, kept hitting American targets is because they never thought we’d hit back with any kind of resolve.

39. Daniel writes: “I am well aware that the Isolationist Right hated the Iraqi front in the war against Islamofascism as much the hard Left.”

    Whoa there, big fellah. How is Iraq part of a war against Islamofascism? As Pat Buchanan noted in a CNN interview with Wolf Blizter, ” . . . the president’s focus on Afghanistan, the Taliban, al Qaeda was exactly right. What I’m saying is, to me, Iraq was a total distraction, we went after a secular despot who had his country under control. That place could wind up as a haven for terrorists now, Wolf. Whatever you say, before we went in it was not that.”

    It’s not a matter of isolationism but of where you pick your battles, and with whom.

    As far as antisemitism, I think that what you’re seeing from from the traditional conservatives and moderates and the liberals is concern with the neocon emphasis on Israel, most recently highlighted by an FBI investigation into whether one or more officials in the Pentagon passed sensitive position papers to an Israel lobbying organization. And this is during a time in which we are fighting a war in the middle east that turned out to be based on false information, much of which was gathered by the Pentagon.

40. Note 37

    We may not have all the facts, even now, Whalid Phares, is reporting on the discovery of some formerly secret documents from Saddam Hussein’s government detailing involvement in terrorist activities. Maybe we should wait and see what those documents reveal. We are just beginning to learn about the collusion of French, German and Russian officials and NGO’s.

41. Michael – RE: Your your comments in # 35.

    1) No doubt Michael Moore arranged every frame in his film to portray Geroge W. Bush in the worst possible light, just as the Sinclair Broadcasting film “Stolen Honor” attempts to do the same thing to John Kerry.

    But even removed from the film and considered independently the facts discussed in the Farenheit 911 are pretty disturbing. Why were so many African-Americans in Florida disenfranchised in 2000? What impact has the $1.4 billion the Bush family has earned from its dealings with Saudi Arabia have? Why did John Ashcroft tell acting FBI director Picard not to disturb him with any more terrorist warnings during the summer of 2001? Just because Michael Moore asks these questions doesn’t make them any less worthy of our consideration.

42. Read what Christopher Hitchens has to say about Moore and his film:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

43. Christopher Hitchens on Moore’s film: “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of ‘dissenting’ bravery.”

    Moore’s film has routinely been panned by intelligent and serious commentators across the political spectrum as without factual merit.

    Dean the kinds of comments you make concerning our President are even more extreme than those made about Clinton when he was President, i.e., he murdered Vince Foster,et.al, he was responsiible for a huge drug running operation in Arkansas, etc. I am sure you were justly offended by such nonsense about Clinton, why stoop to the same type of baseless attack, especially when there are actually legitimate political and philosophical arguments than can be made against Bush. If the Democrats had a strong candidate, and they got off their absurd social agenda that promotes death, licentiousness, class warfare, and judicial tyranny at every turn, Bush and the Republicans would not stand a chance. The pasta backbones that the Republicans demonstrate in the Senate and in other areas of politics indicates that they are eaten up with political expediency rather than genuinely committed to what they say them believe.

    There are responsible ways to talk about the need for more economic equity and opportunity in America (despite the fact that we already have more than any country in the world). There are legitimate ways to encourage real, effective dialog and co-opertative action in the world. The Democrats can’t seem to find any, continuing to rely on the same empty rhetoric in every election–a rhetoric that is becoming less and less reflective of the way we really are.

44. Note 39

    The “questions” asked are not dispassionate inquiries. They are loaded questions on the order of “when did you stop beating your wife.”

45. Dean, have you actually seen “Stolen Honor “? If so, how and where? If not, you are getting WAY ahead of yourself. This doesn’t inform the debate at all, but shows you up in a pretty bad light as a debater. Think before you type.

46. Bill – here is what I know aout “Stolen Honor”. It was written by Carlton Sherwood, a long time reporter of the Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Reverened Sun Myung Moon and which is known for its far right-wing extremist viewpoint. Mr. Sherwood is an unapologetic supporter of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and authored the pro-Unification Church book “Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.”

    Just this year, the Reverened Moon had himself coronated “Messiah” in a bizzare ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Building (“Lawmakers attend Moon ?coronation? in Dirksen”, June 22, 2004; http://www.hillnews.com/news/062204/moon.aspx ) During that cermony, according to the Washington Post, “The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was “sent to Earth … to save the world’s six billion people…. Emperors, kings and presidents… have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

    If the considering the source isn’t enough to make you wary of “Stolen Honor”, than consider the content. According to this documentary, John Kerry’s terrible deed was testifying before Congress about atrocities he witnessed or heard about while serving in Viet Nam, and that somehow this testimony represented “slander” against his fellow soldiers and “demoralized” them.

    Did John Kerry lie about atrocities committed by Americans in Viet Nam?

    The answer is “no” because those incidents are all well documented. There was the MyLai massacre, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html. There were also the actions of shadowy counter-insurgency teams, like Tiger Force:
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

    John Kerry’s own unit operated under “free fire” rules of engagement under which they were directed to fire at anything that moved. Understandably, under such rules innocent civilians could be caught in the crossfire and killed, and that is what Kerry testified. Does this make John Kerry a war criminal? No because if we prosecuted him we would have to prosecute every man who operated under similar rules of engagement, not just during the Viet nam war but right now in Iraq, where US soldiers have also killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. (Read: Atrocities in Iraq: ‘I killed innocent people for our government’, By Paul Rockwell – Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2004, http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html)

    Did John Kerry set out to slander and demoralize his fellow soldiers who had served in Viet Nam. Here is his answer to that question,

    “Senator Kerry said last week that he never meant to blame the soldiers. ‘I have stood up and consistently defended the soldiers as innocent victims of civilian policy at higher levels,’ he told The (Toledo)Blade. He has few regrets over what he said in 1971. “I think that occasionally there was language that might have been a little hot here and there,’ he said. ‘But by and large, the facts I laid out and the basic criticism of the war has been documented by countless people.’
    (Source: ?Kerry?s candidacy opens war wounds, Presidential hopeful stands behind Vietnam testimony’, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040229/SRTIGERFORCE/102290004 )

    Clearly the subjects of criticism in Kerry’s testimony wer NOT his fellow soldiers, but the politicians and military top brass that swept the crimes under the rug, bundling all the honorable soldiers with a few war criminals instead of clearly separating the two. The real dishonesty lies with those, like Carlton Sherwood who seek to obfuscate and confound the issues Kerry raised by misrepresenting Kerry’s criticism of US policy in Viet Nam as an attack on his fellow soldiers

47. Michael writes: “Moore?s film has routinely been panned by intelligent and serious commentators across the political spectrum as without factual merit.”

    I have not seen Moore’s film, though my wife and in-laws have seen it. I’ve read so much about it that I feel like I’ve seen it, which is why I didn’t actually see it.

    My impression is that the movie is largely factual, but also a piece of political propaganda, in that it is designed to put Bush and others in a bad light. In other words, propaganda is not necessarily a matter of presenting false information, but of presenting facts selectively.

    I have a hard time getting very upset about it, since I think that at a factual level it is considerably more accurate than was the administration’s case for war, and Moore’s movie didn’t kill anyone. People who like Bush will be unmoved by the film, and people who don’t like Bush will be entertained.

    And after all the smear campaigns Bush and Rove have been involved in over the years I think it is a measure of justice that they are beginning to receive a small portion of what they have dished out. The Bush administration complaining about Moore’s film is like Saddam Hussein calling someone else a tryant.

48. Bill – I know that the documentary ?Stolen Honor? was written by Carlton Sherwood, a long time reporter for the Washington Times, the newspaper owned by the Reverened Sum Myung Moon, and which is known for its far right-wing extremist views. Sherwood, an unapologetic supporter of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, authored the pro-Unification Church book ?Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. ( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Sherwood )

    You will remember that the Reverenced Moon, wearing crown and ermine robes had himself declared ?Humanity?s Messiah? in a bizarre ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Building earlier this year (Source: ?Lawmakers attend Moon ?coronation? in Dirksen? http://www.hillnews.com/news/062204/moon.aspx). According to the Washington Post, ?The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was “sent to Earth . . . to save the world’s six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”. (Source: ?The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception;Lawmakers Say They Were Misled?,. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

    So Bill, if considering the source isn?t enough to make you wary of this strange documentary I will gladly explore the content with you. The major charge that ?Stolen Honor? directs against John Kerry is that Kerry?s testimony to Congress regarding American atrocities during the Vietnam War slandered and demoralized his fellow soldiers.

    First we know that Kerry wasn?t lying because the atrocities that a small group of American soldiers committed during the Vietnam war are well documented. There was the My Lai massacre, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html. There were the atrocities of shadowy counter insurgency unites like Tiger Force,, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE.

    John Kerry?s own unit in Vietnam, like so many others, operated under ?Free Fire? rules of engagement that directed soldiers to shoot at anything that moved. Understandably, under such rules of engagement many innocent civilians caught in the cross fire were killed. If we prosecuted John Kerry for his actions in such situations, as Michael Baumann has suggested, we would have to also prosecute every other soldier who fought under free fire rules of engagement during the Vietnam war, and in Iraq today/, where we know the US military has inflicted thousands of ?collateral damage? casualties against Iraqi civilians.

    Was John Kerry?s testimony aimed at slandering and demoralizing his fellow soldiers as he is accused in Stole Honor? Let?s hear what Kerry has to say

    ?Senator Kerry said last week that he never meant to blame the soldiers. ?I have stood up and consistently defended the soldiers as innocent victims of civilian policy at higher levels,? he told The Blade. He has few regrets over what he said in 1971. ?I think that occasionally there was language that might have been a little hot here and there,? he said. ?But by and large, the facts I laid out and the basic criticism of the war has been documented by countless people.? ( Source: ?Kerry?s candidacy opens war wounds; Presidential hopeful stands behind Vietnam testimony; http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040229/SRTIGERFORCE/102290004

    Kerry never blamed the soldiers for the atrocities, but the civilian leadership and military brass who sought to cover up war crimes by lumping together the vast majority of good and decent soldiers with a handful of bad ones, and then attempted to portray any discussion of the bad as an attack on the good..

    By 1968, Robert McNamara who was Secretary of defense while John Kerry was serving his country in Viet Nam, came to the conclusion that the Vietnam war was unwinnable and advised President Johnson that the best the United States could expect to achieve was ?endless stalemate.? The basic dishonesty of a documentary like Stolen Honor is that it attempts to misrepresent Kerry?s comments regarding the hopelessness and terrible cost of the war as an attack on its fellow soldiers.

    As Christians we believe in a commandment that a person should ?not bear false witness? against another. Anyone who supports the contentions of a a shoddy piece of propaganda like Stolen Honor is breaking that commandment. As movie reviewer Roger Ebert writes, ?Of all the dirty tricks in this unhappy presidential campaign, the most outrageous has been the ad campaign by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” attempting to discredit John Kerry’s service in Vietnam. Supporters of the malingering Bush have shamelessly challenged the war record of a wounded and decorated veteran. Their campaign illustrates the tactic of the Big Lie, as defined by Hitler and perfected by Goebbels: Although a little lie is laughed at, a Big Lie somehow takes on a reality of its own, through its sheer effrontery.?
    Source: Review of ?Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry?, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041001/REVIEWS/409300303/1001

49. Bill – I know that the documentary ?Stolen Honor? was written by Carlton Sherwood, a long time reporter for the Washington Times, the newspaper owned by the Reverened Sum Myung Moon, and which is known for its far right-wing extremist views. Sherwood, an unapologetic supporter of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, authored the pro-Unification Church book ?Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. ( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Sherwood )

    You will remember that the Reverenced Moon, wearing crown and ermine robes had himself declared ?Humanity?s Messiah? in a bizarre ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Building earlier this year (Source: ?Lawmakers attend Moon ?coronation? in Dirksen? http://www.hillnews.com/news/062204/moon.aspx). According to the Washington Post, ?The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was “sent to Earth . . . to save the world’s six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”. (Source: ?The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception;Lawmakers Say They Were Misled?,. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

    So Bill, if considering the source isn?t enough to make you wary of this strange documentary I will gladly explore the content with you. The major charge that ?Stolen Honor? directs against John Kerry is that Kerry?s testimony to Congress regarding American atrocities during the Vietnam War slandered and demoralized his fellow soldiers.

    First we know that Kerry wasn?t lying because the atrocities that a small group of American soldiers committed during the Vietnam war are well documented. There was the My Lai massacre, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html. There were the atrocities of shadowy counter insurgency unites like Tiger Force,, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE.

    John Kerry?s own unit in Vietnam, like so many others, operated under ?Free Fire? rules of engagement that directed soldiers to shoot at anything that moved. Understandably, under such rules of engagement many innocent civilians caught in the cross fire were killed. If we prosecuted John Kerry for his actions in such situations, as Michael Baumann has suggested, we would have to also prosecute every other soldier who fought under free fire rules of engagement during the Vietnam war, and in Iraq today/, where we know the US military has inflicted thousands of ?collateral damage? casualties against Iraqi civilians.

    Was John Kerry?s testimony aimed at slandering and demoralizing his fellow soldiers as he is accused in Stole Honor? Let?s hear what Kerry has to say
    ?Senator Kerry said last week that he never meant to blame the soldiers. ?I have stood up and consistently defended the soldiers as innocent victims of civilian policy at higher levels,? he told The Blade. He has few regrets over what he said in 1971. ?I think that occasionally there was language that might have been a little hot here and there,? he said. ?But by and large, the facts I laid out and the basic criticism of the war has been documented by countless people.? ( Source: ?Kerry?s candidacy opens war wounds; Presidential hopeful stands behind Vietnam testimony; http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040229/SRTIGERFORCE/102290004

    Kerry never blamed the soldiers for the atrocities, but the civilian leadership and military brass who sought to cover up war crimes by lumping together the vast majority of good and decent soldiers with a handful of bad ones, and then attempted to portray any discussion of the bad as an attack on the good..
    By 1968, Robert McNamara who was Secretary of defense while John Kerry was serving his country in Viet Nam, came to the conclusion that the Vietnam war was unwinnable and advised President Johnson that the best the United States could expect to achieve was ?endless stalemate.? The basic dishonesty of a documentary like Stolen Honor is that it attempts to misrepresent Kerry?s comments regarding the hopelessness and terrible cost of the war as an attack on its fellow soldiers.

    As Christians we believe in a commandment that a person should ?not bear false witness? against another. Anyone who supports the contentions of a a shoddy piece of propaganda like Stolen Honor is doing just that. As movie reviewer Roger Ebert writes, ?Of all the dirty tricks in this unhappy presidential campaign, the most outrageous has been the ad campaign by the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” attempting to discredit John Kerry’s service in Vietnam. Supporters of the malingering Bush have shamelessly challenged the war record of a wounded and decorated veteran. Their campaign illustrates the tactic of the Big Lie, as defined by Hitler and perfected by Goebbels: Although a little lie is laughed at, a Big Lie somehow takes on a reality of its own, through its sheer effrontery.?
    Source: Review of ?Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry?, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041001/REVIEWS/409300303/1001

50. Bill – I know that the documentary ?Stolen Honor? was written by Carlton Sherwood, a long time reporter for the Washington Times, the newspaper owned by the Reverened Sum Myung Moon, and which is known for its far right-wing extremist views. Sherwood, an unapologetic supporter of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, authored the pro-Unification Church book ?Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. ( Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Sherwood )

    You will remember that the Reverenced Moon, wearing crown and ermine robes had himself declared ?Humanity?s Messiah? in a bizarre ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Building earlier this year (Source: ?Lawmakers attend Moon ?coronation? in Dirksen? http://www.hillnews.com/news/062204/moon.aspx). According to the Washington Post, ?The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was “sent to Earth . . . to save the world’s six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”. (Source: ?The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception;Lawmakers Say They Were Misled?,. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61932-2004Jun22.html

Comments are closed.