America

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 November 2009 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1257483793' post='1996966']
Would you expand on this?

aalpha1989, It depends on how you are objectively judging his actions, by what metrics. And is your evidence the complete story? If you hold God and the Israelites of the Old Testament to the standards you hold Washington, then you indict them too. The OT has LOTS of violence and war. Yea, some God approved.
[/quote]

Actually the Israelites of the OT get a pass.

God is the author of all life. Therefore, if he asks for one (or two, or ten, or a thousand) life back, that life is his. He may take it as he chooses, including through the use of violence initiated by the chosen people. He did take it that way.

Both armies were Christian, and Washington was not attacked. He violated one of the holiest days of the year.

I'm not a fan of the Revolution anyway. Lots of reasons, but the most obvious is that it couldn't be justifiable according to the just war doctrine.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='06 November 2009 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1257484118' post='1996969']
Actually the Israelites of the OT get a pass.

God is the author of all life. Therefore, if he asks for one (or two, or ten, or a thousand) life back, that life is his. He may take it as he chooses, including through the use of violence initiated by the chosen people. He did take it that way. [/quote]
I see. The objective yard stick is put to the side for the Old Testament. Hmm, don't want to get caught judging God! And, no, the Israelites didn't always get a pass.

[quote]Both armies were Christian, and Washington was not attacked. He violated one of the holiest days of the year.

I'm not a fan of the Revolution anyway. Lots of reasons, but the most obvious is that it couldn't be justifiable according to the just war doctrine.
[/quote]
One more time... he attacked the day AFTER Christmas Day. Yes, Washington and the colonialists experienced no violence or oppression before the Revolutionary War. It was a land of milk and honey in America.

[Sternhauser]

I think there were good reasons for localized violence. Such as the Quartering Act: would you want a foreign soldier living in the same house as your teenage daughters?

~Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 November 2009 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1257485045' post='1996973']
I see. The objective yard stick is put to the side for the Old Testament. Hmm, don't want to get caught judging God! And, no, the Israelites didn't always get a pass.


One more time... he attacked the day AFTER Christmas Day. Yes, Washington and the colonialists experienced no violence or oppression before the Revolutionary War. It was a land of milk and honey in America.
[/quote]

Well, Aquinas says that the argument of "authority" is the weakest argument except when concerning God. When it concerns Him, it's the strongest one. So yeah, don't want to get caught judging God (who specifically told the Israelites to engage in violence). I didn't say the Israelites always get a pass; only when God told them so.

Actually, there was hardly any violence or oppression before the Revolutionary war. The colonists were taxed at a MUCH lower rate than British citizens actually living in Britain were taxed (and unquestioningly lower than we ourselves are taxed today). Only 30% of the population actually supported the war, most people were apathetic or loyalist. The just war doctrine does not allow for a war over such trivial taxes. And yeah, America was kinda a land of milk and honey. Not that it was easy to live here; the promised land was no cake walk for the Hebrews, either, even after they conquered it. America was free of any major conflicts (if you compare it to simultaneously occuring European conflicts), and had the British Empire to protect it.

The founding fathers were a bunch of elitist deists who dabbled in bad philosophy and hated true Christianity. Jefferson was one of the most anti-clerical men of his day. Jefferson had graduated from the college of William and Mary, which was known for producing deists, and founded the University of Virginia using deists as faculty. He also made his own Bible; he took the Gospels and, with scissors, cut out every single miracle. Miracles are unscientific and therefore impossible. The Evangelists had been sensationalists. Only Thomas Paine was worse; he went to France during the French Revolution specifically for the purpose of tearing down the Church. Adams tore down the Mass and loudly decreed that any ambassador to the Vatican would herald the end of the new state, Washington masqueraded as an Anglican but stopped attending services after chastised for leaving before communion, and only Madison remained a Christian until his death.

The Revolution was based on Lockean principles, and the new state was founded on deistic (and humanist) ideals; not a state I want to submit myself to.

Also, Christmastide was violated, which is what I meant.

Edited November 6, 2009 by aalpha1989

[kamiller42]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='06 November 2009 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1257486063' post='1996977']
Well, Aquinas says that the argument of "authority" is the weakest argument except when concerning God. When it concerns Him, it's the strongest one. So yeah, don't want to get caught judging God (who specifically told the Israelites to engage in violence). I didn't say the Israelites always get a pass; only when God told them so.[/quote]
Context is important. That was my point. In this case, you examined the situation through theological and Biblical lens and found rationale. Adjustments in perspective should be used when examining history.

[quote]Actually, there was hardly any violence or oppression before the Revolutionary war. The colonists were taxed at a MUCH lower rate than British citizens actually living in Britain were taxed (and unquestioningly lower than we ourselves are taxed today). Only 30% of the population actually supported the war, most people were apathetic or loyalist. The just war doctrine does not allow for a war over such trivial taxes. And yeah, America was kinda a land of milk and honey. Not that it was easy to live here; the promised land was no cake walk for the Hebrews, either, even after they conquered it. America was free of any major conflicts (if you compare it to simultaneously occuring European conflicts), and had the British Empire to protect it. [/quote]
For you, it was "hardly." For them, there was enough violence and oppression to justify a movement. Be it Boston Massacre, taxation without representation, unfair trade, no free speech, etc., they found enough evidence to put their lives on the line by writing the Declaration of Independence. Saying the war was simply over taxes is like saying the Israelites wanted to leave Egypt just because they wanted to worship on the Sabbath. No other reasons?

I have no idea how accurate a survey during the colonial period was, but 30% means nothing. Do you think there might be factors which might influence someone's answer? Even if an accurate poll said a majority of colonialists were loyalists, that doesn't mean the revolutionaries were justified. A majority of Americans at one time believed non-whites were less a person than a white. A majority of Americans until recently had no problem with abortion. Polls take a back seat when you have to do what is right. The Revolutionary War was right.

America was not free of major conflicts. In fact, the colonialists had spent many years fighting wars for and with the British empire. Early America was not a land of milk and honey. There was struggle and conflict. You can review the list [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_British_America"]here[/url].

[quote]The founding fathers were a bunch of elitist deists who dabbled in bad philosophy and hated true Christianity. Jefferson was one of the most anti-clerical men of his day. Jefferson had graduated from the college of William and Mary, which was known for producing deists, and founded the University of Virginia using deists as faculty. He also made his own Bible; he took the Gospels and, with scissors, cut out every single miracle. Miracles are unscientific and therefore impossible. The Evangelists had been sensationalists. Only Thomas Paine was worse; he went to France during the French Revolution specifically for the purpose of tearing down the Church. Adams tore down the Mass and loudly decreed that any ambassador to the Vatican would herald the end of the new state, Washington masqueraded as an Anglican but stopped attending services after chastised for leaving before communion, and only Madison remained a Christian until his death.

The Revolution was based on Lockean principles, and the new state was founded on deistic (and humanist) ideals; not a state I want to submit myself to.
[/quote]
Someone has been reading a book I do not want to mention lest some others be tempted, or at least a book like this.

Out of all these imperfect men, they produced a wonderful system. I don't admire them for their religious views. (Although, they were friends of religion in many ways.) I admire them for what, together with others, they were able to produce.

I know ragging on the founding fathers is as stylish as ragging on Pope Pius XII, but not everything you read is completely accurate and absent of a complete picture. I saw on EWTN a panel discussing presidents and relationships with God. The focus was a book and the author was on the panel. The author is a faithful Catholic. Here I was hearing him arguing away the "Thomas Jefferson was a deist" claim. He used Jefferson's own words talking about God's providential hand in history. Not stuff a deist would say. Again, even if deist, he was a friend of religion.

[quote]Also, Christmastide was violated, which is what I meant.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_26#Events"]Here are other conflicts that happened on 12/26[/url]. Not sure if any of them degrade the cause they were fighting for, like the Civil War and WWII.

[Varg]

Even the Nazis didn't kill people at Christmas

[pat22]

no wonder they were defeated.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Varg' date='06 November 2009 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1257528713' post='1997153']
Even the Nazis didn't kill people at Christmas
[/quote]
Your homework assignment: Read about the Siege of Bastogne.

[Saint Therese]

Every time i see anything about the Battle of Bastogne I want to put on all the clothes I own and sit in front of a fire.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 November 2009 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1257527300' post='1997139']
Context is important. That was my point. In this case, you examined the situation through theological and Biblical lens and found rationale. Adjustments in perspective should be used when examining history.
[/quote]

What adjustments? I am viewing Washington's crossing of the Delaware from a Catholic (theological) point of view. Quite honestly, I don't see why a Catholic would want to do otherwise.

[quote]
For you, it was "hardly." For them, there was enough violence and oppression to justify a movement. Be it Boston Massacre, taxation without representation, unfair trade, no free speech, etc., they found enough evidence to put their lives on the line by writing the Declaration of Independence. Saying the war was simply over taxes is like saying the Israelites wanted to leave Egypt just because they wanted to worship on the Sabbath. No other reasons?
[/quote]
For [i]some[/i] of them it was enough. The war was over taxes and over pride; neither fulfills the just war doctrine.

Also, Ratzinger says in [i]Spirit of the Liturgy[/i] that the Israelites [i]did[/i] leave because there weren't allowed to worship, so I'm gonna call that a pretty good statement.

[quote]
I have no idea how accurate a survey during the colonial period was, but 30% means nothing. Do you think there might be factors which might influence someone's answer? Even if an accurate poll said a majority of colonialists were loyalists, that doesn't mean the revolutionaries were justified. A majority of Americans at one time believed non-whites were less a person than a white. A majority of Americans until recently had no problem with abortion. Polls take a back seat when you have to do what is right. The Revolutionary War was right.
[/quote]

You are right in all your statements here except the last sentence.


[quote]
America was not free of major conflicts. In fact, the colonialists had spent many years fighting wars for and with the British empire. Early America was not a land of milk and honey. There was struggle and conflict. You can review the list [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_British_America"]here[/url].
[/quote]

The 18th century conflicts, which are the ones relevant, are not major. I seem to recall that the biblical land of milk and honey had its fair share of conflicts, no?


[quote]
Someone has been reading a book I do not want to mention lest some others be tempted, or at least a book like this.

Out of all these imperfect men, they produced a wonderful system. I don't admire them for their religious views. (Although, they were friends of religion in many ways.) I admire them for what, together with others, they were able to produce.

I know ragging on the founding fathers is as stylish as ragging on Pope Pius XII, but not everything you read is completely accurate and absent of a complete picture. I saw on EWTN a panel discussing presidents and relationships with God. The focus was a book and the author was on the panel. The author is a faithful Catholic. Here I was hearing him arguing away the "Thomas Jefferson was a deist" claim. He used Jefferson's own words talking about God's providential hand in history. Not stuff a deist would say. Again, even if deist, he was a friend of religion.


[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_26#Events"]Here are other conflicts that happened on 12/26[/url]. Not sure if any of them degrade the cause they were fighting for, like the Civil War and WWII.
[/quote]


Well if ragging on the founding fathers is stylish I guess I'm as hip as they come. I haven't met anyone else who does dislike them, though. I have come to my own opinions objectively based on history, and am usually scorned for them because they are "anti-patriotic" (though true patriotism doesn't hide the truth).

I love Pope Pius XII, I'm not even sure why you brought him up.

With all respect due EWTN and those who appear on the shows, if a man tried to refute the claim that Jefferson was a deist he was dead wrong. Jefferson never tried to hide the fact that he was a deist, and his Bible I mentioned is a well-known fact. The things I have stated are not guesses, but rather historical events. I have not speculated, only used the founding fathers' own words and actions. Jefferson was without question a deist. The language in our documents do not attempt to hide this. Deists of the day all used the words "Supreme Being", etc. to avoid the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. Jefferson was an avowed deist and proud. To deny this is to deny history. The same goes for Thomas Paine (who, though technically not a father, certainly did rally those he could for the cause for freedom).

It is arguable that other fathers were not deists, but it is irrefutable that they hated the Church. Washington was almost certainly a deist, as was Benjamin Franklin. Adams may have maintained his Protestantism, and, as I mentioned before, Madison was certainly a Protestant.

As for conflicts occuring on 12/26, I am against all but completely self-defensive measures. Even if conflict during Christmastide does not degrade the cause of the war (assuming it's just in the first place), it is still an objectively wrong action because it violates a holy time. If attacked, of course one may defend.

[JimR-OCDS]

The American Revolution fails the Just War Doctrine test.



Jim

[ardillacid]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 November 2009 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1257539361' post='1997303']
The American Revolution fails the Just War Doctrine test.



Jim
[/quote]
How so?

[JimR-OCDS]

[list][*]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[*]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[*]there must be serious prospects of success;[*]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/list]
To begin with, Britain wasn't the aggressor nation. The colonies were under British rule

Second, the prospects of success where nil at the beginning. In fact, the American rebels got their butts kicked.

Evils were produced with the use of arms, despite what we like to believe.

Those who refuse to support the rebels, had their houses burn to the ground and some were hung. Taring and feathering was also common and was cruel and nasty.

Canada didn't have a revolution, but eventually became independent.

Also, India, they didn't fire a shot and won their independence.

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='06 November 2009 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1257480128' post='1996921']
Sorry to be a stickler, but they massacred Hessian mercenaries who were fighting for the Brits.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
The Hessians were unarmed?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='06 November 2009 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1257540448' post='1997310']
The Hessians were unarmed?
[/quote]

The Hessians were celebrating Christmas, like all good Christians were.

[JimR-OCDS]

Hessian's were mercenaries, so they participation in the war was immoral.


Jim

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 November 2009 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1257540914' post='1997320']
Hessian's were mercenaries, so they participation in the war was immoral.


Jim
[/quote]

Yes, but this does not make it moral to attack them during Christmastide.

[pat22]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 November 2009 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1257539911' post='1997308']
[list][*]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[*]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[*]there must be serious prospects of success;[*]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.[/list]
To begin with, Britain wasn't the aggressor nation. The colonies were under British rule

Second, the prospects of success where nil at the beginning. In fact, the American rebels got their butts kicked.

Evils were produced with the use of arms, despite what we like to believe.

Those who refuse to support the rebels, had their houses burn to the ground and some were hung. Taring and feathering was also common and was cruel and nasty.

Canada didn't have a revolution, but eventually became independent.

Also, India, they didn't fire a shot and won their independence.

Jim
[/quote]
we didn't have those luxuries. when we peacefully demonstrated and announced our will to be free. the brits locked down our largest port and housed their soldiers in our homes. we were bringing in way too much income from them to simply grant us independence.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 November 2009 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1257540914' post='1997320']
Hessian's were mercenaries, so they participation in the war was immoral.


Jim
[/quote]
does the church consider mercenaties to be immoral? ive wondered about that more than once.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='06 November 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1257540962' post='1997321']
Yes, but this does not make it moral to attack them during Christmastide.
[/quote]


If the war were moral, it would be, othewise, no.



Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

Pat,

[quote]we didn't have those luxuries. when we peacefully demonstrated and announced our will to be free. the brits locked down our largest port and housed their soldiers in our homes. we were bringing in way too much income from them to simply grant us independence. [/quote]

What peaceful demonstration are you refering to?

[quote]does the church consider mercenaties to be immoral? ive wondered about that more than once.[/quote]

I believe the Church would consider mercenaries service in war, to be immoral. But that would have to do with whether the war was just or not in the first place.



Jim