The Church and Me

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope John Paul II spoke out against a possible war against Iraq, telling Vatican-accredited diplomats that military force always must be "the very last option," even when motivated by legitimate concerns.

In an annual "state of the world" address Jan. 13, the pope said the future of humanity depends partly on the earth's peoples and their leaders having the courage to say "no to war."

"War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity," he said.

"And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo?" he said.

"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations," he said.

The pope said the U.N. charter and international law "remind us war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military options."

I was born into a Catholic family, but, following in the footsteps of my parents, I was never very religious. Growing up, I attended mass only on those rare week-ends I was staying with my grandparents. One of my keenest memories of youth was the suspicion my parents held for a kid and his family down the street from us who tried to get me involved in youth Christian camp one summer. In short, I didn't have a religious upbringing and for years and years Christianity was the last thing on my mind.

If you're older, like me, you probably won't be very surprised to hear that this began to change as I got older. I married into a Lutheran family and found, much to my surprise, that my apparently inherited anti-Protestant prejudices are actually quite strong. With no rational basis whatsoever, I found myself thinking as the pastor went on with services: this isn't a proper church and that guy isn't a proper priest and all this happy-clappy singing and arm-waving isn't uplifting or grand, it's silly.

Where did that come from?

I talked this over at the time with my friend Mark, he of the excellent blog OutdoorsPro. We've been friends for a long time, Mark and I. Since 8th Grade, I think. Mark knows how I think, I know how he thinks. So, I wasn't surprised when Mark put his finger on what was causing me friction with the Lutheran services. Said he (I quote from memory): "You're a serious guy and you take ideas serious and if you're going to join a church it isn't going to be some local church it's going to be The Church."

Mark was right. I began to look into it and began studying and reading. I joined an adult education class with a local parish here in Portland and was directed by the very knowledgeable PSU campus ministry co-ordinator to the more conservative American Catholic writers, especially Father John Neuhaus and his magazine First Things.

At the same time, the run-up to the Iraq War was in progress. As I was trying to learn more about this faith, I was presented with a challenge to my ability to ever fully embrace it. And when I saw the Pope saying a mass "for peace" with Iraqi Vice-President Tariq Aziz, I knew in my heart that I could never join the Church.

I have been saddened by that fact over the past few years, especially as the Church under new leadership has begun to show some sign of recognizing the overwhelming danger and threat posed by Islamism. But I have never doubted it was the right decision for me.

And now, further evidence:

Jul. 14 (CWNews.com) - The Holy See has protested Israel's air raids on Lebanon, condemning both terrorist acts and reprisals that violate national sovereignty and strike at innocent civilians.

With Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) on vacation in the Italian Alps, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano (bio - news), read a public statement on Vatican Radio. That statement was released promptly by the Vatican press office on July 14.

Cardinal Sodano said that the Holy Father was carefully following news of the latest developments in the Middle East, "which risk degenerating into a conflict with international repercussions."

"As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other," he continued." He argued that Israel's right to self-defense "does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations."

"In particular," the statement continued, "the Holy See deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation."

On the wrong side. Again.

Update From Israel

I had planned to write more today about what I learned last night about the current situation in Israel on various blogs, sharing comments and posts with people in Europe, Australia, the U.S., Canada and, of course, Israel itself. Then, this morning, I was pointed to an update at The New Republic's website by their Israeli correspondent Yossi Klein Halevi. Halevi is clearly the best writer on Israeli affairs writing in English today. Rather than subject you to my paragraphs, I direct you to his:

The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

The goals of the war should be the destruction of the Hamas regime and the dismantling of the Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon. Israel cannot coexist with Iranian proxies pressing in on its borders. In particular, allowing Hamas to remain in power--and to run the Palestinian educational system--will mean the end of hopes for Arab-Israeli reconciliation not only in this generation but in the next one too.

For the Israeli right, this is the moment of "We told you so." The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza--precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn--is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn't expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn't an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn't whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.

So it wasn't the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel's tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders--including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert--when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel's withdrawal. That policy was not implemented--until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.

Still, many in Israel believe that, even now, the government is acting with excessive restraint. One centrist friend of mine, an Olmert voter, said to me, "If we had assassinated [Hamas leader] Haniyeh after the first kidnapping, [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah would have thought twice about ordering another kidnapping." Israel, then, isn't paying for the failure of unilateral withdrawal, but for the failure to fulfill its promise to seriously respond to provocations after withdrawal.

Absurdly, despite Israel's withdrawal to the international borders with Lebanon and Gaza, much of the international community still sees the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of war: Just as Israel holds Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, so Hamas and Hezbollah now hold Israeli prisoners. One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Another reason is the nature of the crimes committed by the prisoners whose release is being demanded by Hezbollah and Hamas. One of them is Samir Kuntar, a PLO terrorist who in 1979 broke into an apartment in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, took a father and child hostage, and smashed the child's head against a rock. In the Palestinian Authority, Kuntar is considered a hero, a role model for Palestinian children.

The ultimate threat, though, isn't Hezbollah or Hamas but Iran. And as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability--which the Israeli intelligence community believes could happen this year--an Israeli-Iranian showdown becomes increasingly likely. According to a very senior military source with whom I've spoken, Israel is still hoping that an international effort will stop a nuclear Iran; if that fails, then Israel is hoping for an American attack. But if the Bush administration is too weakened to take on Iran, then, as a last resort, Israel will have to act unilaterally. And, added the source, Israel has the operational capability to do so.

For Israelis, that is the worst scenario of all. Except, of course, the scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of the patron state of Hezbollah and Hamas.

I think this strong piece makes three points which are of primary importance.

First, his defense of the theory behind Israel's unilateral withdrawal is absolutely, one-hundred percent on target. It was not withdrawal per se that hurt the Israelis, it was their government's failure of nerve to properly carry it out fully. You withdraw to defensible borders that relieve you of occupation, but the key word there is "defensible" not, repeat, not "withdraw."

Second, is his recognition that the wider Muslim world has genocidal intent with regard to Israel. This is a huge mind-set breakthrough. It means the war is existential in the most fundamental sense, with all that that means.

Third, is his recognition that both Hamas and Hezbollah are extensions of the revolutionary regime in Tehran. Not that both do not share a measure of independence. They do. But that both of them share the same genocidal goal with the client state and, as this blog has painstakingly documented, both have publicly acknowledged that they submit to Iranian orders and consider themselves extensions of the revolutionary regime's military forces.

The Muslim people have, again, chosen war. They have chosen war over peace. All we do by sticking our head in the sand is to make matters worse.

The sooner we drop our fantasy about turning the Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan into model citizens and realize that we are in a common existential war with the Israeli people, the sooner we begin the march to victory.

The longer we pretend that the status quo is working, that there is a "peace process" and that it is somehow of some importance to anyone how many schools or roads we have built in Kandahar Province, the more bitter the cup of defeat will taste before we wake up.

War Never Changes

News this morning that the internationally recognized terrorist group Hizbullah has launched a successful attack into northern Israel, killing a number of IDF soldiers and taking two prisoner. YNET's latest on those attacks states:

Cleared for publication: Three IDF soldiers were killed Wednesday during a Hizbullah raid on Israel's northern border, during which two soldiers were kidnapped by the terror group. Four other soldiers were killed as an IDF tank drove over a roadside bomb during the search for the kidnappers.

Hizbullah, which has a huge presence in southern Lebanon and operates its own shadow local government, including radio and television stations, is strutting around like it has no fear. Also from YNET:

Secretary General of Hizbullah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, termed the Wednesday kidnapping of two IDF soldiers along the northern border by members of his terrorist organization, "The promise that was kept."

Nasrallah appeared before the cameras Wednesday afternoon and delivered a public speech promising that the abducted Israeli soldiers were still alive.

"First, thank God for the victory, the Jihad, and the results," he said. "I want to turn to the brave fighters who today fulfilled the promise and therefore this operation is called 'The promise that was kept.' I thank them and kiss their hands. Today is a day of loyalty to Samir Quntar and the rest of the Lebanese prisoners in Israel."

Nasrallah continued, "We announced that two soldiers were taken hostage. We will make details known as the time is right. It is not true that IDF forces entered the south of Lebanon after the encounter. The Israeli report is not true. No forces entered. Whoever heard this could have assumed that they reached Beirut, but this didn't happen."

Regarding the reports of the Israeli tank that was destroyed, Nasrallah said, "The tank was destroyed when it infiltrated Lebanese territory. Other than that there was no infiltration. The hostages are in a secure place, very far away."

"The operation was carried out at 9:05 a.m., and at 10:30 the Israelis still didn't know what happened. The infiltration of the tank was at one point only, and it was destroyed. What we did today was our natural right and the only way to bring about the release of prisoners and detainees held by Israel."

This statement, like those of Hamas to the south in Gaza, was made in full public view in front of cameras. Obviously, both groups are not exactly cowering in fear of the great IDF, are they?

Since the beginning of the Islamic Terror age and especially since the attacks of 9.11 there has been a huge debate in the West on how best to win the war and deliver safety and security to our people. On the one side, the majority, are those who view the matter as a political question to be resolved through negotiated settlements on contentious issues combined with a law-enforcement approach to stem the worst of the terrorist backlash until those issues are resolved. On the other side, the Bush minority, the matter is viewed as a question of war, but a limited one designed to inject into the terrorist-supporting polity a dose of liberty and democracy that will, over time, open up enough space to allow an alternative vision of Islamic development which addresses Muslim grievances to develop.

And, a tiny minority, but growing, and heretofore almost completely shut out of the debate is the American Jacksonians whose view it is that ruthless, pitiless war must be waged until the Muslim ummah loses the will to fight. After that, we can talk.

Of the three approaches, which do you think is most likely to correctly anticipate what the next step in the conflict will be? Setting aside emotion and what we wish were true, which comes closer to a real understanding of the enemy? What is likely to give a man like Nasrallah pause? A negotiated two-state solution? The fact that he has to run for re-election every two years? Or the likelihood that if he wages war against Israel he, his family and everything he loves will be ruthlessly wiped from the face of the earth? Is this really a tough question?

The fact is that Israel, by acting weak and indecisive, by valuing Palestinian and Muslim lives by a factor many times higher than that shown by Palestinian and Muslim word and deed, has brought this situation on itself.

When Israel went into Gaza, many on the right--especially at Little Green Footballs--thought that the gloves were finally coming off. Yet all we saw was more of the same: half-measures which cost the State of Israel the international condemnation for waging war while reaping none of the benefit of waging that war. Yet more "strikes" into Hamas building known on all sides to have long since been abandoned, more "incursions" into areas without Hamas militants, more "shows of force" designed to impress the enemy.

Since the enemy was holding press conferences at the time, I think it's fair to say they are decidely unimpressed.

Sensing weakness and no resolve, Hamas' allies to the north have now struck. And, contrary to the breathless news reports, Israel's reaction has been the same: it has bombed empty bridges, destroyed unused roads, shelled empty fields.

No one likes war. No one wants war. But that fact changes nothing. War never changes. It is not on a dimmer switch and frustrates attempts to use it for nuanced purpose. It is a bludgeon, a bloody mace, not a briefing paper, not a policy.

The Muslims have chosen war against both Israel and the United States. Until both states unapologetically inflict so much pain on the Muslims that they give up that will to war, the war will continue with defeat after defeat for our side, despite our huge military advantage. No one, least of all Muslims, care that we have built schools in Iraq, fed the hungry in Somalia, saved the Albanians in Kosovo, stopped the slaughter in Bosnia.

Prime Minister Olmert's shameful and disgraceful failure to wage war, real war, when attacked will only further prolong the war and endanger Israel and, incidentally, doom yet another Muslim generation to its fantasies. Similarly, President Bush's inexplicable decision to adopt 55 million Muslims will only serve to set us up as Israel-like "targets of occupation" for years to come.

We can keep dreaming and putting our head in the sand, but it will only raise the butcher's bill in the end.

War never changes.

Yet More Quick Notes

It's Tuesday already, so it must be time for the return of Quick Notes! Here goes:

-- My first thought this morning on hearing of the horrific train bombings in Mumbai was for my friends I know posted there at our consulate. One of the funny things about having been in the Foreign Service is how personal news stories like this become when before they were felt to be only dispatches from faraway places.

-- My second thought was "must have been those damn Buddhists again."

-- I've said it before, but I'll say it again: has the world ever seen such cowards as Muslims? They kill civilians, terrorize passengers, execute hostages, massacre schoolchildren, butcher helpless captives in front of webcams and hide behind a protective cordon of women and children whenever facing a Western foe. Of course, by refusing to make them pay the standard price such tactics would have imposed at any other time in humankind's long history of warfare, we have in a very disturbing way enabled and empowered this strange form of cowardice. Perhaps this is a cowardice of our own?

-- There has been a very good discussion over the week-end at Little Green Footballs on various threads about what the rise of militant Islam means for the central principle of relgious freedom and tolerance in the Western liberal democracies. A certain faction seemed to feel that the overtly political nature of Islam put it outside traditional non-interference principles, while others felt that, like it or not, Islam is a religion and, thus, cannot be treated differently than Judiasm, Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion by the state. It's an interesting question, and one aimed at the heart of what it means to be a liberal democracy.

-- Of course, there are those who do not think that Islam should be considered a religion in that sense and feel it is a cult. A huge cult, but a cult nonetheless. I am not very convinced by this stance, but I will say this: one of the hallmarks of a cult versus a relgion (always a contentious issue, as any Mormon will tell you) is that cults don't let members voluntarily walk away. There can be no doubt that Islam fits that bill, as Ms. Nazra Quraishi of Lansing, Michigan explains to us in a recent letters to the editor page of the Lansing State Journal. In between letters about the city council, the municipal budget and the local police, we find this:

I read Le Roy Barnett's letter ("Muslims, speak up," June 26) about Muslims' opinion on Abdul Rahman's conversion to Christianity.

Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Muslims from birth to grave. The Quran and prophet Muhammad's words and practical application of Quran in life cannot be changed.

Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.

Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.

Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard other rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.

Nazra Quraishi
East Lansing

-- Ms. Quraishi is a kindergarten teacher at a Muslim private school.

-- Which brings me to something else: the conservative push for charter schools and vouchers for students to attend private schools. I'm conservative in most things, but count me out on this one. While I agree that the public schools are badly damaged, I'm not willing to give up on them just yet. And I'll be damned if one penny of my tax dollars are subsidizing anyone sending their kid to a Mecha charter school in Los Angeles or a Muslim private school in Lansing.

-- While I'm pissing off my fellow conservatives, let me just add a few more points.

-- Whatever the virtues of National Review, why is it such an ugly magazine? Can't we have a little class on the right? Over-size fonts, bad cartoons, horrific cover art. The Nation looks ten times better than this, the New Republic a hundred.

-- And that Kathryn Jean Lopez. Wow. I just don't know what to say about her posts other than that. Except maybe if you had to find one person most closely matching the left's caricature of the knee-jerk Catholic conservative, K-Lo would fit the bill. Remember when she was shocked that Cardinal Mahoney opposed the Republican immigration plan in Congress? Who, exactly, does she think fills the otherwise empty pews of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?

-- Governor Mitt Romney is a good man. I like him, I think he is a good governor. But, despite the best efforts of K-Lo and most of the NRO crew, the man will not be the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States. You can call it bigotry if you want. You can post all the outraged editorials arguing that dislike or distrust of Romney's religion is the same and as wrong-headed as the anti-Catholicism directed at President Kennedy. It won't change a thing. The American people will not vote for a Mormon to be the President of the United States.

-- I know, I know, that sounds harsh. Believe me, I don't harbor any dislike of Mormons. Outside of Utah, the region I grew up in in SoCal has the highest percentage of Mormons. I went to school with them, and grew up right near a large Mormon temple. I like Mormons and have counted them among my best friends. But (and this is a delicate issue, to be sure) I just don't think people are going to entrust the Presidency with a man who is a member of a minority religion that has, shall we say, certain beliefs and rituals that strike most people as out-of-the-mainstream? One 30-second commercial about the doctrine of exaltation and, well, you can imagine the questions that would be asked of candiate Romney.

Exaltation or Eternal Progression is a belief among devout members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church or Mormons) that mankind, as spirit children of their Father in Heaven, can become like Him. Although the exact meaning of this has not been defined, most Latter-day Saints speculate that this signifies they may enter the Celestial Kingdom and dwell in the Father's presence. Though Exaltation is not limited to Latter-day Saints, saving ordinances will be required of all who may enter. To enter the presence of the Father signifies that one has become a co-inheritor with Jesus thus becoming like the Father and the Son.

-- Like: "So you believe that when you die you will be physically present in the heavens and become like Jesus...like God Himself?" Not to mention "Are you wearing temple garments right now?"

-- None of these questions will shock any Mormons who read this; they get these same questions in their personal lives all the time, not to mention unfair slanders about polygamy. (Mormons typically are good-natured and tough-shelled about such things). But it's one thing to answer the question in the context of a friendship, quite another under the glaring lights of a campaign.

-- Time to move to the lighter side of life. Let's call it Quick Notes, Page 2 in honor of Paul Harvey.

-- Turbine, fresh from producing the disappointing Dungeons and Dragons Online, has released more information about what it intends for the upcoming Lord of Rings Online (fka Middle Earth Online). To the shock and dismay of the core Tolkien fanbase, they've announced the game will feature both PvP and high-end raiding, thus ensuring the game will be more or less a WoW-clone with a Tolkienesque flavor. Great. Can't wait.

WTB: The One Ring, 500 mithral, also need 2 more Shards of Narsil, pst

Need tank, healer for Moria run, pst!!11!!

That Balrog pwned me, roflwaffles.

-- Yeah, that says "Tolkien" to me!

-- Turbine was handed two of the most honored franchises in fantasy gaming and this is what they do with it? Oy!

-- On a brighter gaming note, I played the demo for Prey last night. Normally, I don't go in for FPS, but this obvious hommage to Half-Life with a twist is inventive, innovative and dang scary. Don't play with the lights off. Bonus points for the opening sequence incoporating "Don't Fear the Reaper". All games need more cowbell. Now, more than ever.

-- I tried to watch some World Cup games, honestly, I did. I'm sorry, I just can't take grown men faking that many injuries and rolling around in badly acted out pain. Maybe it's because I'm a hockey fan, but if a guy like Cole can come back and play a game 6 for the Carolina Hurricanes....well, I'll just leave it at that.

-- It's amazing to me how invisible MLB has become to me. I used to be a huge fan. California Angels, American League West. Then, the Strike and, ka-blam, I haven't seen a full inning since. I wonder if I'm the only guy in this boat? I literally cannot watch it anymore. It's kind of sad.

-- Let's see...politics, games, sports, what am I leaving out?