www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Farenheit 9/11

I fully agree that there is a need to amend the Constitution to rid ourselves of the Electoral College - this move has been overdue for many decades. But (wisely, in my view), the Founding Fathers also made amending the Constituion a difficult and cumbersome process. In this case, one would scarcely expect George W Bush and his supporters to promote such a constitutional amendment! The Deomcrats would to well to make the idea part of their election platform.
This web-site is hardly the place for it, but the whole matter of the Electoral College and the reasons which motivated the Founding Fathers to include it in the Constituion is the subject of an extensive literature. Whether those reasons are as cogent today as they were in the late eighteenth century is the point at issue.
Incognitus

Hritzko (and others),

1)who provided Saddam Hussein with finanicial support, arms and military training during the Iraq-Iran war?

2)who provided Usama Bin Laden and other Islamic "holy warriors" like him with finacial support, arms and military training during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

3)who keeps the House of Saud in power in Saudi-Arabia by providing financial support, arm and military training today?

The answer to all three is of course the United States of America.

It's also a known fact that the House of Bush has had close connections to the House of Saud and strong economic interests in the oil industry in Saudi-Arabia.

Christian

(By the way,Hritzko, the correct way to spell the name of the country I'm resident in, is SWEDEN, not SWEEDEN.)

Dear Christian,

In the early 1980's, Iran was one of the world's biggest threats to peace, stability, and prosperity. Europeans were no less (than Americans) terrified of the Iranian fanatical regime which wanted to spread it's form of radical Islamism to the whole region, and possibly the world. I lived in Paris at the time and vividly remember the tight security in all European cities because of radical Muslim extremists.

In addition to the Americans, ALL of western Europe participated in the sales of arms to Iraq to ensure that that the threat did not become a reality. It was a necessary evil, very much like arming the Soviets was to defeat the NAZIs during WW2. As the atrocities of Saddam came to light, he was increasingly isolated, and eventually defeated.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1970's in order to spread their Godless Communism and turn the country into a satellite state of the Russian Empire.

The American CIA trained and armed 'religious warriors' to defeat the Soviets and force them to retreat back to the Russian Empire. The only mistake the Americans made was not to provide financial, educational, and medical aid to the victorious rebels who where left after the war without any real economy. The USA was having it's own financial crisis at the time (remember the Jimmy Carter days) and could not manage any more foreign aid at the time.

Along came Mr Bin Laden roughly 20 years later and he filled the void by buying power in Afghanistan. He basically took over the parts of the country he wanted and began training terrorists there. NONE OF THE CURRENT TERRORISTS (and/or their offsprings) COULD BE TRACED BACK TO THE 1970'S CIA TRAINING . The Bin Laden folks were a whole new generation of peoples with ideas of 'exporting' radical Islamism - something the USA (and west) never wanted or even anticipated over a generation ago when they helped a few thousand mountain people defend their country against the 'Evil Empire'.

At no time the the United States arm 'radical Islamic' groups who had plans to 'export' their terrorism. The group that wanted this was a generation away and not at all the same people associated witht the Americans

All western democracies (including Sweden - btw thanks for the correction). If you buy their oil, you are keeping them in power - period.

The Saudi's buy most of their weapons (and pay for military services) from Americans, as do many countries including many within the European Union (example: Poland and Germany). Even my native Canada buys most of it's weapons and even has it's territory defended by the United States (ie: NORAD). The Americans have most of the best weapons on the market, and therefore it is reasonable that the Saudis should wish to purchase them. Would you want to defend your country with Soviet era MIG fighter jets ? (btw, the answer is no - see what happened in the Iraq war).

All Middle East states are artifical and were mostly created by the British. Then various pseudo-governments and monarchies were created to bring stability to the regions. It's very difficult to create a democracy with no democratic history. A good example would be Iraq and Russia which are both struggling. Often an autocracy or monarchy is the only solution (albeit imperfect). All western governments supported and continue to support the Saudi royals. Of course, drastic changes are going to have to take place in the immediate future if they wish to retain power.

A generation ago, Iran was a prosperous nation with one of the best standards of living in the region. The revolutionaries threw out the Iranian royals and replaced them with radical muslim clerics who have destroyed the economy to the point that most political scientists claim it will take two generations of hard work in an open society to return to their pre-revolution standard of living. Unfortunately, many radical Islamic groups are willing to take Saudi Arabia down the same path as Iran's revolutionaries did over a generation ago.

Yes the United States of America did the following:

(1) Helped a poor mountain peples defend themselves against the evil empire (ie: Soviet Union). I don't remember any Scandinavians helping to stop the slaughter.

(2) Helped to keep radical Islamism from spreading from Iran to the rest of the region, and possibly the world. I don't remember any Scandinavians helping stop the Islamic revolution tide.

(3) Helped to make Saudi Arabia the most prosperous nation in the middle east (but clearly, there is much need for a domestic political re-orientation). I don't remember the Scandinavians doing anything to bring stability to this country.

QUESTION:

What did the Scandinavians do resolve the above problems ?

I'm not aware of this, but it would not surprise me since the vast majority of large American and European companies do business with the Saudis. There are even many Scandanavian companies which do business with the Saudis.

Your suggestion that president Bush is protecting the Saudi regime because his family has business dealing with them is absurd. :rolleyes:

Hritzko

Hi guys.

I'm back, new location and all.

There is a lot going around on this thread, but I would like to focus on one thing in particular: I cannot believe that there are so many Christians on this forum who are willing to support a virulently pro-abortion candidate for office.

Incognitus, I am particularly shocked by you. Although you are "unknown," it is "known" that you are a Byzantine Catholic cleric of some stature. It is disgraceful that you would publically advocate voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

I am not saying to vote for Bush. If your conscience does not allow you to vote for Bush because of his wars and his assaults on domestic freedoms (Patriot Act, etc.), then there is the third-party alternative. To publically support John Kerry, however, the darling NARAL boy who supports abortion with gusto and pride, is to give scandal to the Christian faithful. In so doing, you are implying that unborn lives do not matter (since support for the taking of those lives is apparently such a minor issue). You are also spitting on the thousands of devout Christians and other Americans who have labored tirelessly to end the scourge of abortion in this country. For shame.



LatinTrad

Incognitus,

As you are someone whom I hold in the highest admiration, I would really appreciate your opinion on this situation.

My entire life I have been told that Catholics have to support the Democrat. Period.

For quite some time now I have been having serious doubts about this position. As someone who has been very involved in the pro-life movement, I am particularly concerned by some statements made by Senator Kerry.

In particular, he has promised a pro-abortion litmus test for all judicial nominations to the supreme court.

He has also pledged to force Catholic hospitals that receive federal money to perform abortions, otherwise he will take away their funding.

Furthermore, he wants to use tax dollars to pay for stem cell research, which requires the creation and destruction of an embryo (baby).

He has also come out in support of the sale of parts from aborted babies for research purposes.

I am very, very concerned by this. I am especially concerned by the influence that he will have through the appointment of federal judges, who serve for life. If he keeps his pledge and stacks the benches with pro-abortion judges, we will be guaranteed to see the abortion industry thriving in this country for decades (maybe centuries) to come.

Yet I am hearing yourself, and many other Catholic priests whom I deeply admire, urging me and other Catholics to support this man. I am confused. What am I missing?

On one hand, I keep hearing from the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church that abortion is a great evil that must be stopped. As this is a democracy, the only way to effect change is to vote for candidates who stand for the position that we believe in. BUT I am also hearing from Byzantine Catholic priests that we have to support Senator John Kerry, because he is a Democrat.

Yet other than the issue of abortion, I don't see a tremendous amount of difference between Bush and Kerry.

Bush went to war against Iraq, a war which I have vocally opposed. However, Senator Kerry voted to go to war against Iraq himself, and gave speeches on the floor of the senate advocating this war. Only now, in retrospect, is he positioning himself against it.

Bush supports the death penalty, a position that I seriously disagree with. However, Senator Kerry also is a supporter of the death penalty.

On the flip side, Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I believe that this is necessary, because the courts are positioning themselves to mandate homosexual marriage, against the popular will of the people. Senator Kerry has come out against this amendment, and is being actively supported by the homosexual lobby.

These are the issues that I care the most about, and honestly, I'm not seeing a bid deal of difference between the two men, EXCEPT on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. These differences are significant enough to preclude the possibility of me voting for Senator Kerry, even though he is the Democrat. So why are so many priests supporting him? As far as I can tell, it is because he is a Democrat and is not named Bush. But is that really good enough of a reason?

I am not advocating voting for Bush, but I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry, even though he is the Democrat.

By the way, have you seen the new John Kerry watch that is being sold by his supporters? When I first saw one I was suprised. The sell for $10, and come with a 5 year warranty. I just can't see myself wearing one of these things...

[Linked Image]
I am looking forward to your response.

Thanks,
Anthony

Thank you, Anthony.

You make several points that absolutely need to be hammered home.

I am enraged that there are Catholic priests like Incognitus offering public support for the Kerry candidacy. It reminds me of one well-respected RC priest in Columbus, OH who earned the nickname of "Pope Hilary" because of his frequent, public support for Bill Clinton's two campaigns.

If the clergy are just going to ignore the blood, the limbs, and the silent screams, then our nation truly has no hope, except in some kind of miraculous manifestation of God's wrath.

LatinTrad

By the way . . . conservative talk radio host Marc Levin has referred to Moore's mendacious documentary as "Farenheit 7/11." :p

No, you don't have to support Democratic candidates. My father thought that, but he grew up in a time when the Democratic party was mainstream, conservative, and actually represented the interests of working people. I am afraid that has changed, and the Democratic party took a leftward swing in the late 1960s from which it has never recovered. As for clergy supporting pro-abortion candidates, keep in mind that some clergy were active in promoting the communist party. Of course, those priests were the first ones the communists shot when they came to power. I agree that you don't have to like Bush. But how can a Catholic, Byzantine or else, support a pro-abortion candidate? I would hate to be in any priests shoes when he tried to rationalize his position to God at judgement. Whatever the excuse, it won't wash.

But what is the real issue here: solving this terrible problem, or simply avoiding a punishiable error? Like not curing a blind man on the Sabbath.

Do those who see the vote in black-and-white terms have a defensible idea of how their vote will bring about a solution to this problem, or is the idea just to keep one's hands clean?

Do I expect a political solution to the problem. No, I don't. As I remember, the Congress never made much of an effort to resolve the problem legislatively, and many members of Congress seemed quite relieved when the Supreme Court dealt with it, instead. I realistically think that the problem is so large, only God can resolve it. But even if I can't stop evil, I don't have to condone it or go along with those who do. The thing that scares me is the reality of a just God. How long before that inevitable divine justice passes judgement on this nation for the crime of abortion?

Not only does the abortion issue put the lie to the Democrats' claim to be for the "little guy", but just check out where most of the money supporting the Democrats comes from versus the monetary powerbase of the Republicans. Democrats receive a significantly smaller number of donations with a much larger dollar value per donation - seems to me most likely from wealthy limousine liberals and powerful left-wing activist groups. On the other hand, the Republicans' money comes from a substantially larger number of smaller dollar value donations - i.e., from families like mine with a single full-time wage earner making well below $100,000 per year - fringe benefits included.

John Kerry despises the idea of being born into privilege as he claims George W. was, but is hypocritically silent when it comes to marrying into money like he's done ! I lived in Midland, TX for 5 1/2 years and can tell you that the President's boyhood home in Midland was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill '50's tract home.

Statements made on this forum in support of various left wing ideologies (i.e., the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Castro in Cuba and "liberal theology" in Latin America as a whole) strike me as very much at odds with both "little o" and "big O" Christian orthodoxy.

Not that I support Somoza or Battista or any other right-wing governments, it's just that Karl Marx was a militant atheist for crying out loud ! Any government that would even loosely base itself on Marxist philosophy - or any fascist secularist philosophy like Nazism - is by nature inimical to the Christian faith.

Enough of my rant...I'd much rather discuss the eternal import of our Faith than the temporal nastiness of politics !

+Blessings of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ to all....

Dad

No Christian can vote for Kerry
But let us not kid ourself about Bush
His mother is pro-choice
His wife is pro-choice
He helped pro-abortion Arlen Specter beat 99%pro life Pat Toomey by a mere 16,000 votes
A phone call to the Right to Life march, not an appearance.
His state of the union mentioned steroids, not abortion.
The war doesnt come close to St Augustine's criteria of a just war, as the Romanian Catholic ruling Bishop has stated
I voted Buchanan in 2000 and will vote Peroutka in 2004.
Principle over "The Party"

M

Walnut40,
I know. It's a no-win situation. For a number of years, I have said I don't know who will win the elections. But I know who the loser will be - the American people. Maybe we get the candidates we deserve.

I really hate statements like this because they don't contain the understanding of the complexity of the system.

States that were overwhelmingly Bush didn't complete there ballot counts. It was a waste of money for states like Oklahoma, where I lived during the election, to continue counting the popular vote when it was irrelevant.

The numbers you see as the final "popular" vote is not accurate because a lot of votes were not considered (and/or the process used was not exactly accurate) because that is *not* the way we elect a president. So when you see that Gore won by 1,700 or some odd votes, I think you're being misled.

If the popular vote was the decider, you would have seen a lot more challenges nationwide, not just in Florida. If you think Florida was a fiasco, if the difference is by only a few votes you would see that insanity spread nationwide. You'd also find a lot of people asking why so many military votes were chucked in the circular file.

Another reason we use the electoral college is for the protection of small states, like Montana. My wife is from Montana and I still have a lot of family in Wyoming. What makes sense to you city folks in New York, Cincinnati, P-burgh, etc., could ruin the lives of good people in smaller, rural states. You need to be honest with yourselves and admit that you actually *don't* know what makes sense in these places.

The electoral college keeps the populations of the small states from being dominated absolutely by those in big cities. That, from my wife's point of view, would be intollerable tyranny. If you want that kind of national disruption, go ahead.

I have noticed that, here in Houston, everyone assumes that the problems in the city of Houston are the country's problems and we have to pass a federal law to address them. What they don't grasp is that, while it may help Houston, it could destroy Bozeman.

Concerning this bit of propaganda, I don't have that much time to waste.

I don't watch this knucklehead and I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh either.