The Attack Against Osama

[megamattman1]

This post has one point almost literally no one considers. Of course we have to defend ourself from terrorists. But does that mean we're the good guys? Why exactly did Osama attack us? Everyone says it's because he hates us. Why does he hate us? Some would say because we're a Christian country. Some would say because he's just jeoulous.

I've heard a minute few say it's because we took advantage of his people. Does anyone know anything about this? I know American corporations takes advantage of people in like sweat shops and other socially unjust situations. Was there more to the attack on the US or not? It doesn't make sense that he'd attack us. I know terrorism doesn't make sense, but how'd he brainwash so many followers?

If we really are the cause of Osama and company's hatred by our evil acts, it's a shame that we attacked so many innocent people to get to osama and company. But again we do have to defend ourself. And I only make this post because I truly am the devil's advocate! lol :ph34r:

[megamattman1]

I'm also aware that people can easily be brainwashed. Such as the holocaust soldiers who were just "doing their jobs". I am aware this is possible but am seeking other possible answers. Just so that we don't get sidetracked. ;)

[Norseman82]

I think the root of the cause is our support of Israel. That causes a rallying cry among the Arab/Muslim world. And Afghanistan practiced an extreme form of Islam (forcing men to grow long beards, for example) that would make the Ayatollah Khomeni look like a liberal. Put those together and you have some of the ingredients of the al-Qaeda (sp?) hatred against the US.

[Don John of Austria]

He hates us because as a country, we are hostile to God, ( which I would agree with) we are secular humanist, which he specifically condemns and wants to destroy. Most of what he says about us is true, but that doesn't excuse targeting civilians, The military maybe but not civilians. Now He hasn't done that very often( the Trade towers could easily be agrued to be military targets) but he has done it. Now I think my veiws of Islam are well known here so there is no need to got into them suffice it to say I am unconcerned with our attacks on the Taliban and extremist Muslims else where, Iraq is a differant issue.

[jrndveritatis]

From what I gather, Osama is ticked off because of the Westernization of the Islamic world and our support of Israel.

Westernization is in a way evil because it introduces aspects of American culture such as sexual promiscuity, pornography, consumerism, relativism, and agnosticism.

Westernization is in a way good because is introduces aspects of American culture such as the the rights of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, technological advances which improve the quality of life.

The United States supports Israel, the only non-Islamic nation in the Middle East. We took land from Muslims to establish Israel. We provide weapons and technology to Israel. (Of course, the Muslims forget that they took the land from us Catholics by force of arms.)

I can understand anger at the immoral influences of Westernization.

However, Osama's anger at the power of America and Westernization in no way justifies any of his actions. Perhaps we as Americans are guilty of allowing immorality to spread throughout the globe under our leadership. But we are also an influence for good, supporting freedom of religion and speech. But, again, there is no way that this justifies Osama or his insane actions.

So it is not a pity what we did in response to Osama. Rather, it was morally obligatory.

[Don John of Austria]

But we are also an influence for good, supporting freedom of religion and speech.

Freedom of religion is not necessarly good, Freedom of speech definantly is not Objectively good.

[Don John of Austria]

But, again, there is no way that this justifies Osama or his insane actions

Actually according to the traditions of his own people Osama has the right to wage war. His actions are hardly insane, evil perhaps but not insane, why do people say that about anyone morally commited to the other side( whatever that side happens to be.

[jrndveritatis]

As for freedom of religion being not necessarily good...

The Second Vatican Council infallibly declares:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Dignitatis Humanae, Paragraph 2

As for freedom of speech being not objectively good...

According to Pacem in Terris, an encyclical by John XXIII, man has a right to freedom of speech.

12. Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events.

Pacem in Terris

As for Osama being insane...

Maybe that is an exaggeration.

[megamattman1]

ah yes i forgot about Israel. It's funny how ya can know so much about some things and yet so little about others. Now I'll have to search into more on Israel.

And that's why they put these posts up here to begin with!

[megamattman1]

Or I could ask the forum more ?'s.

Does anyone know why we supported Israel? And the story behind it?

I can't believe I forgot about Israel which goes to show I'm really pretty ignorant of this stuff so treat me like I'm a little kid and give me the info.

[Don John of Austria]

Well my previous post didn't make it so maybe this one will.

First Dignitatis Humanae is not infallable like most of VII it was pastorial in nature and does not meet the requirements for Counciliar Infallability.

You should study Counciliar Infallability a bit more before throughing that word around. Pope Pius the IX in the Syllubus of Errors( which did meet all of the requirements for Papal infallability) specifically condemns as heresy the Idea that the Church and State should be seperate. It is not posable to have TRUE religious freedom in a country where the Church and the State are unified, however that unification is the Ideal of the Catholic Church and any rejection of it is a defined Heresy. So it is not Possable that religious freedom can be a GOOD because it is impossable in a Good State.

I must Go I will have to continue this later.

[megamattman1]

Don John, (or anyone else who knows)

What exactly are the infallibles? How do we find them?

For instance, it's been said that contraception, though reasonable, is not infallibly declared and that we should follow out of respect for the authority and the sound rationale of the Pope. But if this is technically not infallible and in the catechism, where exactly is the infallibe information? Does the Church just want us to follow the Pope and not concern ourselves with what is and is not technically infallible? Just out of curiosity.

And my questions on Israel are still standing. :cool:

Edited January 15, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

oooo

Edited January 15, 2004 by megamattman1

[Don John of Austria]

well for starters for a Couciliar dicision to be infallable it must be a decree, and Traditionally only htose things followed by an Anathema were held to actually be infallable. Papal infallability requires more:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia-

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible

[Don John of Austria]

sorry about just copying and pasting but it was so much easier than writeing it out myself.

[megamattman1]

So are you then saying that what is in the catechism is infallible? By catechism I mean the book that says Catechism of the Catholic Church. ;)

[Ellenita]

The state of Israel was officially established in 1948. Very few countries voted against establishing the country - in part some historians believe because of the absolute revulsion felt about the holocaust. My guess is that the US voted in favour of creating the state of Israel and has therefore traditionally been seen as a supporter of the country. The majority of countries voting against were arab countries. The UK abstained (and abstention is always a polite vote for or against a motion). Palestine was a UK protectorate prior to the creation of Israel and there were a number of 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighters', depending on your point of view, acts of violence towards the British by Jewish people in Israel during this time. There was also the shameful incident where Britain refused entry to Palestine (as it was then) to a ship carrying Jewish survivers from the concentration camps - it caused an outcry around the world. Britain has more traditionally been seen as 'pro arab' rather than 'pro Israeli' ever since though most certainly we will have lost any influence we might have had as a result of our support for the Iraq war.

Incidently the ultra orthodox and Hassidic Jewish communities were very much against the establishment of the state of Israel at first. They saw it as being 'man made', political and secular and believed it should be divinely created in God's time.

Edited January 16, 2004 by Ellenita

[jrndveritatis]

sorry don john my bad on the infallibility thing, thanks for the info

BUT...

how can you reconcile the stuff said at vatican II and in blessed john XXIII's encyclical with freedom of religion being evil?

i mean john paul II does emphatically say that freedom of religion is an essential right, or at least that is what i have always understood him to say.

so what do you think?

[Aloysius]

while truth and morality always stays the same, in certain ages there is difference in what needs to be enforced as good and what needs to be enforced as evil. not anything to do with saying anything evil is good, or anything good is evil, just what policy is best for the world. before Augustine knew of such thought he easily fell to the manicheans who made him think the Old and New Testament Gods were irreconcilable with God not enforcing the same morality.

when it comes to matters of Divine governing, what is enforced by God is enforced for the greater good of the world. now, no infallibly declared moral truths can be submitted to this rule, for when God allows the Church to know such a thing is either truly moral or truly immoral, that means that the world must profit from such knowledge. however, neither statement you have said has been infallibly declared. therefore, the Church declares the need for Religious freedom because a united Church and State is no longer for the greater good of the world, as it would in fact turn more people away from necessary morality and necessary truth, and the Church. therefore, in the current time, contradicting no necessary morality, the Church in her divinely instituted wisdom declares religious freedom neccessary for the current world. now, way back in times when the Roman Empire fell and such, it was necessary and good to bring people into the Church for the Church to be the government. Gradually, it began to seperate but be of nearly equal power such as when Charlemagne achieved the Holy Roman Empire, and thus the relationship of the Church to the government is always in accordance with what is greatest for the world at certain times.

did i help or just confuse? :huh:

[Ellenita]

Al,

Therefore the Church declares the need for religious freedom because a united Church and State is no longer for the greater good of the world, as it would in fact turn more people away from necessary morality and necessary truth and the Church.

I think we have a perfect example of that mirrored in the UK. The Church and State are still 'united' by the constitution but the church is largely viewed as irrelevant and not influencing the affairs of the state but rather more that the state influences the church on issues such as morality.