Scorn Makes You Stupid
The line.
You know, the line. The line is is what you cross when in the defense of some perceived good, you do something not so good.
I have crossed the line occasionally here (alright, more than occasionally). Sometimes I have done it merely in an attempt to be funny. Actually, this is where I make the most mistakes. Also, I have occasionally erred when I let my passion over an issue obscure or overwhelm my charity.
As part of my efforts here I write a lot of stuff. Most of it, fairly judged, is nonsense. I think that one of the merits of CMR is that Matthew and I make no claim on think tank quality stuff. Quite the contrary. If we can find and excuse to work the Pope, Hugo Chavez, Richard McBrien, and the Chupacabra (Bigfoot or zombies in a pinch) into a post, we will do it just for yuks. When I go over the line in the name of comedy, retractions or apologies can be proffered quite easily. It is when I am deadly serious that perspective and those same retractions and apologies are typically less forthcoming.
For me, in those times, it is tough to take a step back and look at my words objectively lest I question the motives for writing them in the first place. But, as we all know, sometime motives can be good and judgment and execution poor.
I truly consider myself fortunate that in those moments where my where my judgment has been impaired (or absent) whether due to comedy or conviction, I have had good people to offer me correction.
Now don't get me wrong, as a Catholic blogger I am frequently offered correction of all types, much of which is offered in the form of the ubiquitous anonymous comment. This I put no stock in. However, sometimes correction comes from otherwise supportive sources (my wife, my brother, and other bloggers whom I respect). When the otherwise amiable and erudite suggest that I missed the mark, I listen. Maybe I don't listen right away, but I eventually listen. When I do, I am usually better off for it.
Why all the preamble? Because offering correction is tough and I know that I have a plank in my own eye. Even so, I feel compelled to say that I suspect that Mark Shea has crossed the line.
Mark, in his righteous fury over the support for torture demonstrated by this administration seeks to bolster his contention that the "bushies" are evil by relaying the following third hand anecdote.
You might be interested in an anecdote I haven't published because it is just a rumor, though it is a rumor only once removed from me.While I find the plausibility of this anecdote suspect, I will not debate it here because it is irrelevant to the point I wish to make. While the Bush administration can rightly be critiqued and perhaps even condemned for its support of torture, I do not think that it is remotely Christian to relay an admittedly third hand and unverified anecdote that accuses Americans of systematic large scale murder.
A pilot friend of mine knows another pilot who flies big cargo planes. This other pilot, not my friend, flew big freight airplanes in and out of Iraq as a civilian contractor for a while. Mostly his 'cargo' was prisoners. He would regularly take off (so he says) with, say, 65 prisoners, and land with only 25 or so. Supposedly prisoners were being interrogated and then pushed out the door ten thousand feet up if they didn't please the interrogators. Our own intelligence agents (not military) were the interrogators, according to the pilot. They always made sure they were done throwing prisoners out the door before they got into NATO airspace.
My pilot friend who told me this had never discussed the war or prisoner interrogation or anything like it with me. I first met him years ago, but I've only gotten to know him well in the last year or so. We were chatting up various pilot careers at the time, and discussing the 'freight dogs' who fly really big cargo planes. He just brought it up out of the blue when talking about this 'freight dog' friend of his.
Anyway, a few years back I would have dismissed such rumors as conspiracy theorists tunneling under our houses with black helicopters provided by aliens passing by in a comet. Now they strike me as eminently plausible. Maybe I was naive before, but if so I kind of wish I still was.
Mark refers to the above as 'entirely believable' on the basis that Bush has supported other bad things. But this third hand unverified anecdote accuses not just Bush (although that would be bad enough) but other U.S. citizens of systematic (large scale) murder with absolutely no proof.
I believe this crosses the line. I am not going to get into the specific areas of the catechism that address such horrific public accusations. I am quite confident that anyone who cares about it can find the relevant passages on their own. Long story short, this is plainly wrong and profoundly un-Christian.
I remember back in the day when President Clinton was outed as an admitted adulterer and perjurer. There were those on the right whose judgment was so clouded by disdain (and even hate) for the President that they used these obvious transgressions as cover for publicly entertaining any all scurrilous rumors about the President ranging from from rape to murder. It was wrong when they did it then and it is equally wrong today.
Frankly I think that Mark Shea is a better person and a better blogger than this post would indicate. I believe that posting such a heinous rumor with absolutely no evidence simply on the basis that it fits with your view that the administration is corrupt is a serious error in judgment. Mark should retract that portion of the post as it is a disservice and a distraction to the good work that he typically performs on his blog.
Update: Joining the fray...
Erin Manning
Jay Anderson
87 comments:
I used to really enjoy reading Mark Shea's writing, and I still do enjoy some of his articles on apologetics. And I do visit his blog from time to time because he does provide some interesting links.
But I don't visit his blog all that often, because his writing style there tends to be too caustic and condescending for my taste, especially when the subject is President Bush and/or torture.
Mr. Shea has rightly pointed out that torture is wrong, and that Catholics should not take the view that the ends justify the means, by accepting torture as a necessary evil if it keeps us safe. I commend him for taking this stand.
But it seems that he is too quick to dismiss other Catholics as being pro-torture or as torture apologists, simply because they might not agree with 100% of his analysis on this issue (even if they still do agree that torture is wrong). And it also seems to me that he is too quick to latch onto any piece of information that could even potentially paint the Bush Administration in a bad light, with minimal regard for how plausible or implausible the information might be.
This particular third-hand anecdote about pushing Iraqis out of a plane crosses a bit farther over the line than I have seen him cross before, but unfortunately, I don't think it is the first time that the line has been crossed. :(
(And to be fair, I should state that I have crossed the line myself many times in online conversations about apologetics, politics, etc.)
Charity does not apply only to people but also to institutions. Bearing false witness is a grave sin. Given the absence of evidence and the anecdotal evidence here "I know a man who knows a man who said..." I think you are very right. He has crossed the line and seriously given the nature of the content.
While this seems a bit much even for the Bush administration, such stories aren't necessary to recognize it as the abject failure it is, from starting a war for no good reason and conducting it badly to boot to letting the country's economy go to pot. Bush has blood on his hands and shedding the occasional tear upon meeting a widow or bereaved mother does not change anything. It'd be hard to find 'the line' one could possibly cross with Dubya & company.
Because of his actions, tens of thousands have fallen victim to "collateral damage", thousands of American soldiers are dead and tens of thousands are maimed for life, in body and soul. Oh, and their house may be gone, too, while the banks get socialist welfare treatment.
Whether he had additional people killed in one way or another is blood under the bridge. It'd be hard to, uh, stain his, uh, good name at this point. The conditions under which "outsourced" prisoners are being interrogated aren't that swell either. It'd be like finding the 51st victim of a serial killer previously thought to have had 50.
Oh, but, you see, Bush is "pro-life" ! Not even funny.
Torture doesn't come anywhere near the magnitude of this lovely war. Granted, it has its upsides as well - Who doesn't appreciate an opportunity to die for nothing. Oh, they made the ‘final sacrifice’. They ‘died for their country’. The rather cold and hard truth is they died for and because of Bush. That’s it. Thanks for playing. Flag on coffin neatly folded and handed to a grieving wife or mother notwithstanding.
Pomp and circumstance may convince some to part with reality. Yet, the ugliness remains despite choosing to ignore it. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people around who can be sold on that shameful lie that equates dying in uniform with service of one's country.
You see, we cannot, must not quit now because otherwise all those soldiers would have died or lost limbs in vain ! MORE of them need to have this chance. There are plenty more people around about whose "sacrifice" we could be proud of.
Who really knows what it means to die in some godforsaken place for the grand schemes of the commander in chief ? Do we prefer not to know ? Does the distance reduce the horror ? The sanitized coverage ? Do we not care because there is no draft ? Sadly, those who are related to the soldiers who died are frequently sold on the propaganda that equals supporting the troops with keeping them in harm’s way ad infinitum. But Taps what played so nicely. 21 gun salute. I hear he died in the dusty streets from the bullets of just one gun.
The problem goes far beyond the Bush administration. Far too many people in America are still sold on the lies that make wars like this possible.
“Son this is what it cost to keep us free”, a line from an insidious Country song glorifying dying "for your country" - This paranoia, that everyone is after ‘our freedom’ (which is somewhat illusory to begin with), combined with “They hate us because we’re free” is the perfect recipe for perpetual war. Western Europe stopped being sold on that. I guess America has not suffered enough to ‘get it’.
A grateful nation thanks you that your son’s leg was left back in Iraq. He left it there for our freedom. His brother even got atomized for it. His remains are roughly the same size as the folded flag we present you today.
Talk about a culture of life - people who have been drilled along the lines of dutyhonorcountrydutyhonorcountrythefewtheproudanarmyofoneyoutalkingtomemaggot
are less likely to see the ancient "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" for the propaganda it is. (It can be justified when attacked of course, but it certainly is never sweet.)
They are prepared from childhood on to one day "serve their country", starting with the daily Pledge of Allegiance (pretty insecure, no?)
How following the capricious orders of some president automatically constitutes "serving one's country" is beyond me. Spending the taxpayers' money on a godforsaken war is rather a disservice.
"Country" becomes synonymous with whatever the "Commander in Chief" decides people should die for. In addition, the notion that we can't stop now because otherwise all those Americans have died in vain is both understandable coming from troops and their families and insidious - as it gives more people the opportunity to, uh, "not have died in vain". It tries to command lockstep from the people, with the sword of being "Unamerican" hung, Damocles-like, over their heads. Enough SIRYESSIR already.
Almost 6 years into this abyss this old song, recorded recently by Springsteen, is sadly fitting once more....and I think the prior and the current pope would sing along.
If you love this land of the free
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Bring them back from overseas
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
It will make the politicians sad, I know
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
They wanna tangle with their foe
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
They wanna test their grand theories
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
With the blood of you and me
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Now we'll give no more brave young lives
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
For the gleam in someone's eyes
Bring 'em home, bring 'em home
Wow....got issues? Remember the title of this post...
Heaping scorn on people who started an unjust war isn't exactly a bad thing to do. I do indeed take issue with the reign of ruins of this thankfully-soon-to-be-gone administration.
Worrying whether one may have attributed one too many atrocities to it seems rather silly given the magnitude of the American disaster - on countless levels. The outrage re: Iraq was certainly clearly articulated by your popes. Unless you want to take issue with John Paul II's cri de coeur "No more war !", too.
Paleeze. All this Bush bashing is innapropriate for this blog. I do not come here to read this garbage.
You Bush haters got what you wanted -- your pro-abortion socialist has been elected. Let's move on.
That is the problem with hobby horses is that you can come to use anything to support them. Mark has done great work on the subject of torture, but he can also accept pretty much any wild rumor that comes down the pike that is nothing more than mere gossip to support his anger at the administration. There can certainly be righteous anger when an intrinsic evil is committed, but I think Mark who I consider a friend has gone beyond this.
The title is appropriate.
You speak about one particular line, here's another: 3 to 1 sez Mr. Shea will soon join other quasi-/ex-/anti- Catholic bloggers in raving, hillaryis44 or /b/ brand lunacy, albeit with a nice ultramontanist veneer and prettypretty pictures.
Spoke too soon, I see.
Yes! The shameless waste of 4500 American lives to prevent the torture and murder of millions of Iraqis under an insane dictator.
Because, of course, an America life is worth more than the life of that guy being run through the meat-grinder feet first.
What IS the equation? 1 American = 1000 other people? 100,000?
ARGH. What were we supposed to do? Wander around, looking for WMD, and when we only found bio and chem but no nukes say "Oops, Sorry Saddam!!! Here are the keys to your palace! Go back to kidnapping and torturing Shiite Brides on their wedding nights, or whatever else it is you do for fun????
(Sorry guys... I KNOW this wasn't supposed to be an 'arguing the war' post, but.... I HATE the way a lot of the anti-war crowd hsbitually uses language that make it sound like only WHITE lives matter, and then turns around and calls CONSERVATIVEs the racists....
I agree with Paul H. My enjoyment of Mr. Shea's considerable skills have been lessened by his (Mr. Shea's) assigning of bad faith to so many.
I have contributed money to two bloggers in my life - the subject of this post, and the author of the unhinged comments a little bit down the thread. Long story short: I shouldn't contribute money to bloggers.
Mr. Shea is wrong for accusing Americans of participating in a certain kind of murder (pushing people out of planes) with only unverifiable hearsay as evidence. But we are truly guilty of "systematic (large scale) murder" - we ruthlessly kill a million of our children in the womb every year.
I don't read Mr. Shea's tendentious, truculent, and self-righteous blog any longer. It's a windy waste of time. That said, his story about throwing enemy prisoners out of planes has been in circulation since the Vietnam War...and as an Army vet, I am pretty offended by Mr. Shea's calumny of the President (the actual one, the the looming one).
For his own soul's sake, Shea is in need of a long sabbatical away from his own thoughts and writing...preferably in a cloister.
Superb rant, GA Naus. The Springsteen quote could have been left out for brevity, but otherwise spot on.
Now perhaps some discerning deep-thinker will label me an Obama-lovin' pro-abortion socialist.
Did Mark go over the line? Yeah, probably. But I'm still a fan. Even Homer nods off sometimes. And I doubt Mark'll ever be quasi/ex Catholic -- unlike the subtle rationalisers who love the Church only so long as she knows her place.
Romulus
As you have also posted: "American Papist says you shouldn't read too many blogs" And Mr.Shea's blog is definitely off my reading list! He's so anti-military that he dehumanizes the men and women of our Armed Forces. If he doesn't agree with the Iraqi war, fine. It's cliche, but he can thank the Veteran's that he has the right and the freedom of speech to protest the war. To slander the troops is wrong and I feel sorry for Mr.Shea and all of the anti-war activists that cannot differentiate between the policies that sent the troops to war and the people of our armed services. Mr. Shea's dislike of these people has caused him to commit the sin of false witness. He needs to be careful his sin does not take him down the road of hatred because it appears he's headed that way...and it's a long way back.
BTW - Springsteen does not speak for the troops - we have an ALL volunteer force that speaks for themselves. Their vote on November 4th said it all.
PS - CMR thank you for being a counter-point!
As John Hetman has stated, this story has been around since Viet Nam. Ho-hum.
You would think Shea would verify his source before launching into a BDS fit.
As Catholics, we are members of the Body of Christ first.
We'll see if the next administration even ends the war as they said they would. In the meantime, the clock is ticking and another member of Christ's Church gets murdered in the womb.
God have mercy on us.
Debra
"A friend said that a friend said that this guy saw..."
Baloney Sandwiches.
That's the sort of thing the Blame-America-First mob said about those of us who were in Viet-Nam.
And, curiously, not far from what some blogging priests say about those of us who teach in public school.
Mack
I think you are all far too generous in appraising Mark Shea. I have had the misfortune of crossing him on numerous occasions. He not only can be vindictive but also obsessive. He has a well-deserved reputation for deliberately falsifying opposing positions, constructing rhetorical straw men and, when all else fails, engaging in vitriolic personal attacks. Those tendencies outweigh whatever good he might have done as a Catholic apologist.
I think Catholics should evaluate each other on what they do and how they behave, not only on what they say. Unfortunately, there's too much of a tendency in the Church (especially among bishops, priests and assorted intellectuals) to give rhetoric a greater meaning and value than it deserves, as opposed to the consequences of that rhetoric or the behavior of the rhetoriticians.
There's also too much of a tendency to defend or soft-pedal criticisms of fellow Catholics merely because they're Catholic. Sorry, guys, but Christ didn't call us to engage in groupthink.
Patrick:
A parable for your amusement.
The thing I find most amazing about the reactions of so many is that nobody seems to really care about the fact that we already know that the Administration has tortured people, including innocent people, approved methods which have resulted in the murder of prisoners, and shielded the murderers from prosecution.
All this goes without comment from people who are *outraged* at my rudeness for suggesting that, given what we already know, it's not unreasonable to think there may be more where that came from. All people here are doing is haggling about *how often* the administration has committed these war crimes and *how theatrically they've been committed*. Delete the entire letter from my friend and the fact remains that the Administration has committed war crimes and shielded the perps, a fact documented multiple times on my blog. What people are upset about here is that I've been rude enough to suggest that it's possible, given what we already know, that there may be more egregious and theatrical crimes. The documented abuse and murder of prisoners gets overlooked complete and the white hot wrath gets focused on the guy who says "I tend not to immediately trust lying murderers and torturers."
With priorities like that, it's not surprising that allegedly conservative Catholics supported torture in statistically greater number than the average American. Something we can no doubt look back on with pride when the history of this time is written.
Er, folks -- have you voiced these concerns to fellow Catholic Shea?
Mi scuzi, CMR, but what is the point of posting something accusatory about someone else? I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. Do you intend this post as a public service announcement? It sounds like the airing of a grievance. If you don't like what Mark Shea says, or think he needs some light or clarification, talk to *him*, not to the public.
Or am I missing your point?
Er, folks -- have you voiced these concerns to fellow Catholic Shea?
No. Very often I just notice that there's a link to my blog from somebody who is shaking their head sadly about what a ruin I've become. A shell of my former self, really. This time I've gone totally round the bend.
Mi scuzi, CMR, but what is the point of posting something accusatory about someone else?
Do you not even grasp the irony of complaining about someone posting accusatory of someone else, when the someone else has posted something accusatory based on third-party hearsay?
I believe Mark Shea is correct in noticing that the place to voice concerns about his writing is on his blog.
There certainly does seem something stupid in posting the anecdote about throwing people from a plane [an old anecdote, at that] with no better source than "someone told me that somebody heard that someone said...". That's merely sloppy.
Among the 8 million reasons this story is implausible:
-- The Argentines who supposedly did it during the Dirty War did so as a method of extra-judicial execution, not as an interrogation technique, as this third-hand unsourced account maintains. This makes no moral difference of course, but it does explain how this story could be implausible and the Argentine accounts true. Because the Argentines were dumping already-dead or drugged-unconscious bodies over an open ocean near their shores, they could use small planes and sometimes even helicopters (not the "really big cargo planes" like C-17s and C-5s) flying at low speeds and low altitude. Flying planes that size at the speeds and altitudes surreptitiousness requires ("10,000 feet up") or while having to overcome the resistance of a living person -- they all make opening the plane a perilous act to everyone in the cabin, including the interrogators themselves.
-- Interrogators throughout history have killed one or a few prisoners in a large group to intimidate the others. But unless one were dealing with bloodthirsty psychos for whom killing is its own justification, routinely killing 2/3 of the prisoners is simply waste. Particularly since in this third-hand unsourced scenario, the prisoners are already secured, presumably headed for Gitmo or some other secure place, and time is not of the essence. After the third "Untouchables" moment, anyone not into killing for its own sake figures out that pure intimidation isn't gonna work in this case, so let the folks at Gitmo try something else.
-- There is no way this pilot three-sources-removed didn't know bodies were being dropped until he landed and saw only 1/3 as many prisoners. Any time any door opens on a modern plane, all sorts of bells and lights go off. The amount of cargo weight will go down, particularly if we're talking more than one or two people being tossed off, and sensors on the plane will alert him to that too.
-- The geography doesn't work. Flying over a NATO country from Iraq wouldn't be an issue unless it were an issue very quickly in the flight -- far too little time to reach cruising altitude and then interrogate 40 people for long enough to figure out "he ain't talking, kill him." Further the nearest large bodies of water (the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea) are narrow, hemmed-in, not-especially-deep with lots of land nearby. At least some of the bodies would have washed up, particularly if this was as systematic as the three-sources-removed pilot implies (assuming that no drops ever miscalculated and wound up overland -- which is not a good assumption).
-- If it really were to have happened, there is no way this pilot, who would have had to have the highest black-ops clearance, would be wagging his tongue.
-- If it really were to have happened, the actions of Shea (and the actions of the initial pilot and the two intervening parties) in response are laughable. He's positing the deliberate murder of dozens at a time as a matter of official policy (nothing like that is confirmed), citing as precedents acts by South American military juntas ... and ... "it needs to be investigated"??? By whom?? A regime that does this is quite capable of covering it up. Or making people disappear. He is positing a US regime of a character completely incommensurate with his remedy and his actions in Spreading The Real Truth. As Dale Price put it re a 9-11 Truther: "If you really believed that this cracked hypothesis was true, you would one day go before the judgement throne of Christ and say 'Lord, I made anonymous comments on some guy's blog in resistance to the most tyrannical regime since the fall of Communism'?" Or as a commenter at Dale's put it: "Do you really think a government so evil that it would kill 3000 people in an instant would hesitate to kill anyone who stumbled onto their secret? Do you think they wouldn't be able to find those people? ... The very fact that you can post the allegations you're making is proof that the government isn't the evil you make it out to be. Or as Kathy Shaidle put it (can't find the original) ... "if Bush is Hitler, why aren't you a lampshade."
Mark
I don't think you will find any *outrgage* in my post. I don't think you will find any support of torture in my post or on my blog. I don't think that you will find and defense of the administration on these points in my post or on my blog. I have not lamented or wrung my hands at the "ruin you have become" Straw men, all.
You say "I tend not to immediately trust lying murderers and torturers."
Fine and dandy. Neither do I. Does any of that justify posting a third hand completely unverifiable accusation of murder. This accusation is not even just directed at the administration which you have already pronounced guilty. This accusation contends murder by contractors on a massive scale with no proof.
The limited scope of my post dealt with the judgment of posting such a thing. Even if all you contend about the administration is 100% true, posting such a serious specific accusation with no real evidence is wrong. I stand by that.
Ah! Hyperbole! The friend of the polemicist!
Nobody's saying "Bush is Hitler". Nobody's saying Bush was behind 9/11. This sort of straw man argument is a favorite of people who are in denial about the reality of Administration approval of torture and shielding for CIA murder suspects. However, if you are going to insist that it's impossible Bush is responsible for any war crimes, you've got some heavy seas ahead since the evidence is very strongly pointing to the fact that he is. One can be a war criminal without being a genocidal maniac. That's the subtle point that often seems to escape those in my comboxes and elsewhere who have labored without end to excuse the abuse and even murder of prisoners by CIA ops using techniques that the Bush Administration has fought to preserve. Those same ops have been shielded from prosecution by the Administration. One need not be a Hitler to do such things. Merely an Executive convinced that the ends justify the means.
But relax, all y'all. None of this will ever come to trial, including the stuff that's well documented. The new President is giving every indication that the powers won for him by Bush will come in very handy and he seems in no hurry to deprive the CIA of the power to use "enhanced interrogation" when it seems... useful.
You miss the point, which is not exactly that you think Bush is Hitler or behind 9/11. But rather that you are making statements -- charges of deliberate mass murder as state policy -- that are only coherent under a certain understanding of the American regime. That it is of the same character as the Argentine junta of the 70s. Bush wouldn't have to be Hitler to be Galtieri or Viola. But yet you are not acting like you believe you could become one of the desaparecidos too.
Mark,
You posted an absurd allegation that rational people have pointed out cannot possibly be true, and your justification is: well, Bush has done other evil things, so I'll just leave it out there.
No one is defending the other actions. In fact, your accusations do more to damage the cause of people who want to fight against torture. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf. At some point, we have to leave aside the irrational arguments in order to concentrate on those matters which are of serious concern.
So, you might want to think twice about calling someone out for using straw men arguments when you say things like: "However, if you are going to insist that it's impossible Bush is responsible for any war crimes, you've got some heavy seas ahead."
What you've essentially done is to lay down a marker that anyone who has any qualms with anything you've written must automatically disagree with everything you say. No one is saying that the administration has done no wrong. We're saying - it almost assuredly has not done this, and you should have thought twice before posting this.
Just as Joe McCarthy damaged the cause of anti-communism by engaging in witch hunts, one can do damage to the anti-torture cause by engaging in something like a witch hunt based on absolutely nothing resembling proof.
The limited scope of my post dealt with the judgment of posting such a thing.
...and utterly and completely overlooked the fact that the rest of what I posted, including an interrogator's remarks about the disastrous effects of Bush's torture policies, makes it clear that the bleedin' *point* of posting the note was not "I believe this and so should you" but "My reader is depressed that we no longer live in a country where such stories can be rejected outright as crazy talk and so am I."
The problem, in short, is that your post demonstrates what I have long gotten used to from so much of St. Blog's: a massive tendency to major in minors. Documented torture that not only violates the law of God but gets our troops killed in greater numbers? Hey! Let not even touch on that!
Follow that damning story by mentioning "Here's a note from a guy who is depressed because he can no longer simply dismiss claims of torture and murder outright"?
Patrick jumps in with MARK SHEA IS STUPID! and his readers chorus: YES! WE AGREE! WE'RE NEVER READING THAT ANTI-MILITARY, BUSH-HATER AGAIN! HE SAYS BUSH IS HITLER!!!
Yeah. That's real perspective.
And never mind all the implausibilities of detail in this fantastical story that you've never touched and which anyone with a BS-detector would have spotted and moved along. Or been grateful for the correction based on knowledge one may not have himself ("You know what, that is implausible. I'm glad that story almost certainly isn't true.").
You are literally making judgments and basing your public words based on the blindest faith ("I know who I believe and trust") rather than the most elementary reasoning about "what is plausible."
Shea is pretty and not beyond using expletives in his combox
posting the note was not "I believe this and so should you"
Then why did you say in the combox "I know who I believe and trust"?
Well gee Mark, I suppose that since I didn't address the rest of your post my point is invalid. Truth is, I agreed with much of the rest of the post. I even called your fury "righteous" I don't see how that has any bearing on what I wrote.
As for calling you *stupid*, c'mon. This is obviously a play on your oft repeated phrase "sin makes you stupid." I am not calling you stupid, but that portion of your post was not smart.
As for the comments in the combox here, I am no more responsible for them than you are for all the crazy things that sometimes get said in your combox.
Ex-Shea Reader:
Because it seemed to me the honesty of my reader was being impugned while the honesty of the Bushies was being taken for granted. It doesn't follow that the story my reader reported is true, merely that it was honestly reported. He himself makes clear that it is simply hearsay. His point, like mine, is not "Believe this" but "It's tragic we now live in a country where we cannot instantly reject this as unquestionably false." That's the legacy of this Administration. And people are angry at me for saying so, not at them for making it so. Weird world.
Well gee Mark, I suppose that since I didn't address the rest of your post my point is invalid.
No. Merely trivial. It's as if I had posted a note in April 2002 from somebody who said, "I had a friend who claimed he was raped by a priest and I always thought he was a liar. Now I'm not so sure." If the overwhelming response to this was "You are recklessly throwing around calumny against all our priests and bishops, not to mention blaspheming GOD HIMSELF!"
Well, no. I'm not. I'm saying, as was my reader, "What I formerly thought incredible now no longer appears to be so, given what we know the episcopacy *has* done." The story might well be false. But I no longer have the luxury of laughing it off. And when I meet people who *viciously* denounce the story and the guy who passed it on, I find myself wondering why, given what we know, we should pile on the guy who is, after all, simply recording his doubt and dismay and not directing our outrage at the real problem: the people who have done so much to create that doubt and dismay by their actions. It's like being in a dysfunctional family where the kid who says out loud, "Dad has a drinking problem" is the one everybody beats up on because they are too scared to confront Dad.
His point, like mine, is not "Believe this" but "It's tragic we now live in a country where we cannot instantly reject this as unquestionably false."
We can reject this as unquestionably false ... for a score of reasons already given to you and which you've ignored, addressing yourself only to matters of trust.
And no ... no revelation can be tragic unless it passes some threshold of plausibility. Which this story does not do.
Rejecting this story as fantasy is most emphatically NOT a matter about "whom do you believe" but about "is it plausible?" (which it isn't).
"We know the person is awful" is no excuse in Church teaching for gossip, detraction and carelessness with the truth. If I said "Charles Manson murdered Nicole Simpson," that is gossip and detraction because it is completely implausible for reasons having nothing to do with whether Charles Manson is capable of murder. And if I said "George Bush murdered Nicole Simpson," it would not be made any more plausible by the video of him personally waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and packing Manadel al-Jamadi in ice with his own bare hands.
Ex-Shea:
You seem to take me (and yourself) as expert in the technical details of black ops and what is and is not logistically possible for the CIA to do. Speaking for myself, I'm not, which is what gives rise to my doubt and dismay about the story. And I really kind of doubt that you are either, nor that any of the combox experts who have confidently declared that this story is impossible actually know it to be so. Especially puzzling to me is the strange juxtaposition of arguments that go "This could never happen!" with "This used to happen long ago in Argentina!" So I'm left pretty much where I was: with an Administration that is already documentably implicated in war crimes and whose untrustworthiness leaves me with the tragic realization that simply because somebody shouts real loud at me, that doesn't make it any less the case that I can no longer confidently dismiss the possibility that the CIA has continued murdering detainees and the Administration has continued covering for that.
And by all mean, do continue to ignore the real meat of my post: the complaint of the interrogator who laments that Bush's torture policies got more of our troops killed. Cuz, you know, I just hate our troops.
Though it seems a number of ex-military on your blog have commented on the improbability of what you report. They seem to have the expertise.
Do vets have expertise on what avenues the CIA have open to them in running black sites or black ops? I don't see why they should be unless they are trained in such matters. Both my brothers are vets (so much for my hatred of the military) and neither of them would have the slightest idea how such things are run, nor what logistical possibilities are open to the resourceful CIA interrogator operating with the protection of the Administration. Nor does anyone here, I'll wager.
Again, none of that is to say the story my correspondent related is true. It's merely to say that his doubt and dismay are understandable and that people who scream at him or me "THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE!!!" do not persuade me of the truth of that proposition merely by force of volume. I highly doubt any of my readers has any expertise in the areas necessary to establish that it is logistically impossible for the story to be true.
That's the problem. It still seems to me that logistically, the story is quite possible. All it requires is a plane, some detainees, some interrogators, a little open water or mountainous terrain, and a pilot with a guilty conscience or a case of braggadocio and terminal stupidity. If you think nobody's that stupid, recall the photos from Abu Ghraib were likewise the result of criminals who liked to boast about their work. Similarly, the alleged impossibility of the feat is belied by the fact that it's already been done by other regimes, just as the alleged impossibility of the geography presumes a thorough knowledge of where every CIA black site is. Do you know? I sure don't.
What I've always assumed--till this Administration--was that what made the story truly impossible was that it was *morally* impossible for Americans to do such things. I no longer believe this. So my question is: given that we *know* this Administration has tortured, murdered and sheilded the perps in other cases, why should I trust that they have not said, "Where there's a will, there's a way" here? I don't trust that, nor do I believe that they have. I. Don't. Know. Nor does my correspondent. And it's depressing not to know because it's one of the things I should be able to know: that my government is trustworthy.
You seem to take me (and yourself) as expert in the technical details of black ops and what is and is not logistically possible for the CIA to do.
Again, this turns everything into a matter of personal authority -- "who do you trust" / "are you an expert" -- while assuming that people can't critically examine the details of the story you reproduced and you disseminated. It's all blind faith, no general reason.
I said exactly one thing that presupposes knowledge of black-ops -- which is that the people involved have the highest security clearances (not exactly news to anybody) and therefore it really isn't plausible that they'd describe them in idle gossip. Is it possible that someone involved in black-ops would casually spill the beans? Sure. If some 80-year-old guy says "I'm really the Lindbergh baby," that's not technically impossible either, no. Just very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely and shouldn't be believed absent much better evidence than third-hand hearsay.
Everything else cited here and in your chatbox -- some of whom clearly had military experience -- requires only generally available nonclassified knowledge of geography, aircraft, atmospherics, military history and a little human psychology.
Especially puzzling to me is the strange juxtaposition of arguments that go "This could never happen!" with "This used to happen long ago in Argentina!"
The story that you recounted, detailed and disseminated could not have happened. Something that superficially sounds like it probably did happen 30 years ago (and thus might be a source for this fantasy).
The fact that OJ Simpson murdered his wife by slashing her throat would not make more plausible an account 30 years from now of some star athlete in Argentina cutting his wife's head off with his pinky ring while juggling flaming numchucks while driving a Ford Bronco through the middle of Buenos Aires at noon and nobody noticing.
Actually a fair number of military personel have knowledge of the CIA and what they do. Many military also have knowledge of the planes that would be used and the improbability of what you claim given what is available to the CIA and military.
Much more credibility that is that something told to someone who told it to you.
But perhaps you can ask your resident "military expert on all things military including interrogation, special forces etc." and see what he has to say.
just as the alleged impossibility of the geography presumes a thorough knowledge of where every CIA black site is.
Not at all. The account you disseminated specified that the guy flew out of Iraq and that flying over NATO members was a concern -- they had to dump them before reaching Europe, remember? Which makes the account implausible and has nothing to do with where the eventual destination. (If it were in Africa, Latin America or East Asia, flying over NATO members' airspace simply never is an issue.)
It still seems to me that logistically, the story is quite possible. All it requires is a plane, some detainees, some interrogators, a little open water or mountainous terrain
If people are being tossed over land or in an enclosed body of water, at least some bodies will have been found. (The Argentines understood that you make people disappear in the high seas.)
Also, the account clearly describes both an ongoing program and a policy of killing dozens of people at a time, not "a plane," "a few prisoners" and "a little open water."
It is simply impossible that the US is surreptitiously tossing hundreds of desaperecidos from "big cargo planes ... 10,000 feet up" based on a supposed failure to please onboard interrogators.
But perhaps you can ask your resident "military expert on all things military including interrogation, special forces etc." and see what he has to say.
I have no such resident expert. That's kinda my point. I have a reader who, like you and me, doesn't know much beyond the fact that we already know the Administration has tortured, murdered and lied about it before and therefore has no confidence that they might have done it again. Any other flippancies you'd like to offer?
I said exactly one thing that presupposes knowledge of black-ops
Which is another way of saying you don't really know what you are talking about when you declare the story categorically impossible from a logistical standpoint.
Again, this turns everything into a matter of personal authority -- "who do you trust" / "are you an expert"
Correctamundo. Because that's the point of my post. Expertise can establish that this is really an impossible story. None of my readers have it. Nor do I. I can easily imagine any number of ways the story could be true if the CIA was of a mind to do such things and the arguments you have presented so far don't go far in persuading me that the thing is logistically impossible. That doesn't make the story true. It merely makes your vehement denials unconvincing.
So, given the logistical possibility of the thing, I'm then left with the question, "If they could do it, would they?"
And that takes us to the question of the trustworthiness of the moral agents involved: namely, an Administration which I already know from other evidence to be guilty of torture, facilitating murder and covering it up.
Again, contra the ridiculous OJ Simpson analogy, I do not say that they have done the thing my reader reported. But I do say I have no confidence they have not, let alone the granite certitude you guys seem to have. I'm more in the position of somebody who has just been told "O.J. Simpson tried to kidnap me" and having you guys all shouting "Simpson kidnap somebody? That could *never* happen! Think of the expense! And he's already been through enough with the whole murder thing! Get off his back!"
Only, the thing is, it turned out that people who commit murder and get away with it sometimes do other bad things too. So you have to wonder when somebody tells you a story like that. Might be false. But I no longer have the luxury of immediately rejecting it.
So yeah. It's all about trust. That was my point.
Very simple question ... do you understand why it's impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
So, given the logistical possibility of the thing, I'm then left with the question, "If they could do it, would they?"
In a nutshell that is the mentality of Truther you have become. If something is not impossible, it's fair game to speculate on what the nefarious They would do.
And yes, the OJ Simpson analogy was accurate. The story you recount is as technically and psychologically plausible as that one, whatever one might say about Simpson's character.
The account you disseminated specified that the guy flew out of Iraq and that flying over NATO members was a concern -- they had to dump them before reaching Europe, remember?
Assuming that my correspondent is giving legal testimony and not relating an anecdote with fuzzy details, you'd really have something there. Personally, I still don't see what would be so hard about attaching something heavy to the victim and ditching him over water. So the whole "this is logistically possible thing" still eludes me.
Nonetheless, my point (which is still being steadfastly ignored) is not that I think this story true, but that, given what we know, it is no longer instantly impossible on the grounds that we know the American government would never give moral consent to the torture and murder of detainees. They have. And they have lied about it and shielded perps. That's the real problem--and the thing this whole conversation is phobically avoiding.
Assuming that my correspondent is giving legal testimony and not relating an anecdote with fuzzy details, you'd really have something there.
Except that the two details cited -- flying out of Iraq and the need to have bodies dumped before entering NATO airspace -- are central operational facts repeated every time, not fuzzy anecdotal details, like whether a flight occurred on a Thursday or a Wednesday, or whether 27 or 23 prisoners were tossed during a given flight.
Very simple question ... do you understand why it's impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
Because you say it is and only a fool could question you.
In a nutshell that is the mentality of Truther you have become.
A Truther has a pre-ordained conclusion. He knows that Bush orchestrated 9/11 and is now simply concerned with buttressing his fore-ordained conclusion, facts be damned.
I make no claim that the story my reader relates is true. I simply note that given what we do know about the Administration's facilitation of other--documented--acts of torture, murder, and shielding of perps it is no longer morally unthinkable that they might do something like what my reader related.
In contrast, you have a fore-ordained conclusion: it is absolutely impossible for the Administration to do what my reader related, and now you are buttressing your conclusion with whatever bits of evidence you can find. Anything that might suggest otherwise is simply ignored, much like a Truther ignores common sense.
In short, I have no conclusion whatever about this story. You are bound and determined to ignore it, despite the fact that the Administration is already documentably implicated in torture and murder elsewhere.
And you think I'm the crazy one simply for saying, "You know, I don't trust those guys."
This whole conversation is sort of the last gasp of the Alice In Wonderland moral topsy turveydom of the End to Evil types I have come to know so well in the past four years. Bizarre!
Very simple question ... do you understand why it's impossible to toss people from big cargo planes at 10,000 feet?
Because you say it is and only a fool could question you.
Are you serious? You don't why this is? Have you ever flown a commercial aircraft? Have you ever seen a "big cargo plane" load and unload?
No wonder you think everything is a matter of "who do you trust?"
The Bush regime is so evil it now evidently can defy the laws of physics.
In contrast, you have a fore-ordained conclusion: it is absolutely impossible for the Administration to do what my reader related
The story your reader related is impossible for reasons of geography, psychology and science having nothing to do with any opinion of the Bush administration.
You really need to get over your habit of assuming that vehement disagreement with you makes one a Bushie shill.
Bizarre!
Yes, Mark. You gullibly relate a third-hand story that is at best implausible, pass it off as being being not unlikely because of what we know about the administration, and we're the ones who are leaping outside the bounds of reality. Very 1984.
Mark:
It was stated over in the combox at your blog and bears repeating here - your tactic is very much like Andrew Sullivan's tactic in dishing up "possibilities" of the parentageof Trig Palin. "Hey, I'm just saying some stuff. Draw your own conclusions. Could be true, might not. Eh."
Really sad.
And you think I'm the crazy one simply for saying, "You know, I don't trust those guys."
You're welcome to that distrust.
You're not thereby entitled to repeat and disseminate claims that are not substantiated and that slight intellectual due-diligence should tell you are exceedingly implausible at best.
"Distrust" does not carve out an exception to the Church teaching on calumny and detraction.
Laws of physics?
You mean you can't parachute from 10,000 feet? All those people on Google, lying again, just to make you look bad.
Nope. Sorry. This is not tantamount to Trig Trutherism, much as you try to make it so. It's the common sense observation that people who have lied and murdered lose their trustworthiness.
I have to apologize to Mark. Just now I stepped outside and it started raining corpses. I forgot how routine such an occurrence was. No wonder the people living underneath the flight path were so non-plussed.
Sure am glad that Patrick's readers have learned that all-important lesson about scorn he set out to teach.
Later, dudes!
Nope. Sorry. This is not tantamount to Trig Trutherism, much as you try to make it so.
Of course not; one was spreading a pretty obvious lie to make Gov. Palin sound bad, and the other is spreading a pretty obvious lie to make Prez. Bush look bad....
Totally different.
Repeating my comment left on Mark's blog.
Let's all pray this together:
Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil upon the head,
running down upon the beard,
upon the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
life for evermore.
Glory be... as it was...
IOW, I think we're getting too heated up here. Time to stop, pray for each other, and move on. It's not worth the tarnish to one's soul.
"I believe Mark Shea is correct in noticing that the place to voice concerns about his writing is on his blog."
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
Mark will be the first one to tell you that he owes no one a forum, and that if someone disagrees with something he's written, they're free to start their own blog and critique him there.
Besides, Mark has once again engaged in calumny without going to the original source of this story to verify it. It's a little lame to now complain that someone aired a grievance against him for that somewhere besides Mark's blog.
"Mark will be the first one to tell you that he owes no one a forum, and that if someone disagrees with something he's written, they're free to start their own blog and critique him there."
I know the above for a fact, because Mark has said it to me before when I complained that he had banned someone from commenting at his blog and then posted a diatribe against the guy without the guy having an opportunity to respond because of his banishment.
So, forgive me if I don't view Mark as the victim here.
Jay, you're absolutely right. Mark said the same thing to me six years ago because he cannot tolerate any opposing opinion for very long without feeling personally threatened. This has nothing to do with his position on torture; if he maintained the exact opposite position, he'd behave the exact same way.
Confronting Shea with the conesequences of his positions on his own blog, as M suggests, only gets you banned -- even if you make your points rationally and without invective. So what's the point?
Joe D'Hippolito and Mark Shea:
Pray for the personal intentions of the other (if you find this dubiuos, just ask that God's will be done). And then please disengage. Not worth the trouble for your souls.
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I'd like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You're welcome to drop on by.
"I have no such resident expert. That's kinda my point. I have a reader who, like you and me, doesn't know much beyond the fact that we already know the Administration has tortured, murdered and lied about it before and therefore has no confidence that they might have done it again. Any other flippancies you'd like to offer?"
Of course you have such and expert which you have publicly commended:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/113993811290587716/#428341
But now its time to listen to the vets who have legitimate credentials. Any more flippancies from you?
"I have to apologize to Mark. Just now I stepped outside and it started raining corpses. I forgot how routine such an occurrence was. No wonder the people living underneath the flight path were so non-plussed."
Crankycon,
Don't know where those bodies are coming from but they can't be terrorists. You see, the terrorists that are thrown from planes are transported to Area 51.
Its true. You see, I heard from someone that heard from someone else that I totally trust that we have developed transport technology recovered from spaceships kept at area 51. Its called the Total Body Shifter or TBS. The only problem is this TBS is too large to move so all the bodies get transported to Area 51. Its true. I heard it.
Patrick,
I don't think you've answered my question yet, and I'm still sincerely curious. To repeat:
What is the point of this post (posting something accusatory about someone else)? I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. Do you intend this post as a public service announcement? It sounds like the airing of a grievance...Or am I missing your point?
M-
I think it's pretty clear what Patrick's purpose in this post is and was-- to stand up and say "this is not acceptable," in the hopes of being heard.
It should be apparent from his blog alone that you can take the Protestant out of the protestant "church" but you can't take the Protestant out of the blogger
Now that's a bit uncalled for-- I know cradle Catholics and converts alike who would nod in agreement to the discussed post.
M.
I am not airing a grievance or accusing anyone of anything. I am critiquing something that another blogger wrote. This is the way it works. It is a public debate. This is my blog and this is what is for.
Mark does exactly the same thing on his blog. I respectfully disagreed with Mark on the prudence of printing such a thing. Writing about my opinions is what I do, why is this even an issue?
I am not accusing anyone of a private sin which would mandate a private mail. This is a public discussion with some disagreement. This is not an issue.
Mr. Shea,
In the hope that you are still reading the comments here, I offer the following:
You don't know me, but as I mentioned in the very first comment above, I occasionally visit your blog, and I have enjoyed and derived great benefit from your writings on apologetics.
As an observer with no dog in this race as to who is right or wrong, I have to say that this entire ongoing debate over the Bush Administration's actions regarding torture has degenerated way beyond the point of fruitful dialogue, both on your part and on the part of a few of the more strident voices who criticize you (I don't include Mr. Archbold in that category).
I completely understand the reason for your anger over the current administration's actions and policies regarding torture, and I also understand that it is natural to dig in and defend oneself when one is criticized, as you have done in the comments above.
However, it is my personal opinion that you are not currently doing good for anyone with your defensive and strident tone on this issue. I think that you could derive tremendous spiritual benefit from taking a break -- even if only a week or two -- from blogging and from following current events. Even just going on a weekend retreat could potentially bear great fruit.
This suggestion is based on my own personal experience. I too have engaged in political and religious debates online, and have slowly slid down the slippery slope from "I want to proclaim the truth in order to achieve a greater good" to "I'm RIGHT and you're WRONG, DAMMIT!!" In situations like that, it was only removing myself from the situation (e.g., from the particular discussion board, or from the internet entirely) that allowed me to get back on the right course.
I realize that this advice probably doesn't (and perhaps shouldn't) carry much weight with you, since I am basically an anonymous stranger. But I hope that others who are closer to you and whose opinion you value are giving you the same advice. Perhaps this season of Advent provides a good opportunity for reflection.
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I'd like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You're welcome to drop on by.
Dave, many thanks for the invitation. Please send your e-mail address to jdhipp@gmail.com; for some reason, I can't get it by placing the cursor over your name.
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I'd like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You're welcome to drop on by.
Dave, many thanks for the invitation. Please send your e-mail address to jdhipp@gmail.com; for some reason, I can't get it by placing the cursor over your name.
While we are all venting about Shea, let's consider who the real enemy is, as exemplified by the murder of an Orthodox rabbi and his wife.
(from Tammy Bruce's blog):
Chabad is a large Hasidic movement of Orthodox Judaism. These days it's based in Brooklyn, but it started in Europe over 200 years ago. The modern Chabad house began in Los Angeles in the 1960's, and Chabad houses are now spread around the world. Mumbai Chabad House, a five-story building, has an educational center, a synagogue, and it offers drug prevention and hostel services.
These are the people who get targeted for murder. Take a moment to consider how telling this is. In light of the tensions and flare-ups between Pakistan and India, or between Muslims and Hindus, an attack on India from Pakistan isn't in itself surprising. But for the raiding party to devote two of its ten assassins to torturing and murdering the only rabbi in Mumbai along with his wife...this boggles the mind. There's no strategy or purpose here; it's an act of raw, impersonal hatred. We see the face of an evil that defies rational comprehension.
It's been observed that the Jews are the miner's canary of the world. The Islamic terror that has hit so many nations started as a campaign against the Jews. There's a lesson and a warning there, but the world prefers to close its eyes
These genocidal jihadist totalitarians are the real enemy, not the Bush Administration nor some two-bit apologist who thinks he knows more than he actually does.
We Catholics must remember that San Diego Matamoros, Lepanto and Vienna are just as much a part of our heritage as the Pax Christi/Catholic Worker nonsense -- perhaps more so.
Patrick,
Thanks for your reply.
I find that telling 3rd parties what 2nd parties should do is less effective than going directly to said 2nd parties, but you don't. OK. Also confusing, my occasional visits to CMR usually yield posts about news items, movies, and personal reflections, not (usually) posts critiquing fellow bloggers.
Whatever the merits of the larger discussion, there is a lot of ignorance on display about what can and cannot be accomplished with aircraft; ignorance which can easily be dispelled by a little googling. For example, see this video, and this one.
Also, the "bodies would be turning up everywhere, therefore there would be lots of investigations" contention doesn't scan. Heck, it took a year to find this guy -- who went down with a whole airplane wrapped around him, in the United States, during peacetime, with lots of people searching diligently. It is easy for ordinary people to disappear without a trace in the United States in peacetime. The notion that a few dozen people disappearing in Iraq during the war would mean that bodies turning up everywhere would let the cat out of the bag is just ludicrous.
Mind you, this says nothing about the believability of the rumor on other grounds, nor on the wisdom of talking about the rumor on a blog. But the "this is operationally impossible" trope is nonsense on stilts.
And what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
This is irrelevant to the main discussion, don't you think?
As with most discussions, a number of subtopics have come up. One of those subtopics is the operational feasibility of throwing people who refuse to talk out of airplanes and getting away with it. A number of people have contended, very ignorantly, that it is ludicrous to consider it operationally feasible and that the rumor can be dismissed on the grounds of operational infeasibility simpliciter.
Refuting that manifest ignorance seems at least peripherally pertinent to the discussion.
What people are upset about here is that I've been rude enough to suggest that it's possible, given what we already know, that there may be more egregious and theatrical crimes.
Yes. Of course it's possible. I would like to say that we ought to hold bloggers to the same standards as the mainstream press. If someone tells a reporter that his mother loves him, the first thing he should do is find another corroborating source.
This is sloppy reporting. A friend of a friend of an anonymous source who was there. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
You made it through to me in a prior post when you invoked trust in God's plan to counter the need for torture to get information. I appreciate that viewpoint.
Now I fear you may have "jumped the shark" and have rendered prior arguments less effective.
You don't need spectacular examples (especially uncorroborated spectacular examples) to make you point.
This just illustrates why I quit reading Mark Shea. He went nasty and bitter. Bleah. Better your misfires offered in good humor, Mr. Archbold.
>I think you are all far too generous in appraising Mark Shea. I have had the misfortune of crossing him on numerous occasions.
I reply: Yeh you advocated nuclear genocide against Mecca & you refused to back off that immoral view so he kicked you out of his comboxes & you never got over it.
>He not only can be vindictive but also obsessive.
Like the multiple times you continued to post even after he told you to get lost.
>He has a well-deserved reputation for deliberately falsifying opposing positions, constructing rhetorical straw men and, when all else fails, engaging in vitriolic personal attacks. Those tendencies outweigh whatever good he might have done as a Catholic apologist.
I reply: As my memory serves I remember when I CALLED YOU OUT on your "Let's Nuke Mecca" view instead of plainly saying "Ben I don't believe it is moral to drop a nuke on Mecca" you waxed ellequiant on your speculations that God would blow it up on Judgement Day. No correction of the record from you. No clarifications. Indeed Joe you are by nature ambigious in your views since it allows you to wear many hats & not have to commit to any view. You would have made a first class politician.
>I think Catholics should evaluate each other on what they do and how they behave, not only on what they say.
I reply: Which is the reason I believe to this day you are a heterodox, John Paul II smearing, foulmouthed person & you have no credibility either.
>Unfortunately, there's too much of a tendency in the Church (especially among bishops, priests and assorted intellectuals) to give rhetoric a greater meaning and value than it deserves, as opposed to the consequences of that rhetoric or the behavior of the rhetoriticians.
I reply: Yet you don't take your own advice?
>There's also too much of a tendency to defend or soft-pedal criticisms of fellow Catholics merely because they're Catholic.
Sorry, guys, but Christ didn't call us to engage in groupthink.
I reply: Unless one criticizes you or your political sacred cows then they are being uncharitable like when Fr. Rutler takes on a drunken, anti-Christian, Mother Theresa bashing, limey Atheist & didn't soft-pedal his criticism. You condemned Rutler as I recall.
You haven't changed at all Joe. Still an incoherent hypocrite as always.
BenYachov, I've misssed the reasoned, charitable, intelligent way you respond to my assertions. You truly are a Catholic to be respected and imitated.
Post a Comment