BluffTHIS! 's Christian views on nuclear holocaust

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you admit that leaders use religion to incite people to kill their fellow man?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think leaders often go to war for any number of reasons, ususally something that can be reduced to greed, and use whatever rationale they think they can sell. Getting rid of religion, which is a total impossibility by the way, would simply shift the rationale, in some cases. But if you think the genocides of the 20th century had anything to do with religion, even false religion, you definitely need a history book or two.

[IronUnkind]

Yes...but they also use science, materialism, and rationality as a pretext for inhumanity. Shall we outlaw these as well?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about:

[/ QUOTE ]
Stalin and Mao. Combined they account for roughly 90,000,000 people murdered. Add the rest of the atheistic communists and the sum of those murdered by communism is ~110,000,000.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


[/ QUOTE ]

They were nutcases, but at least they weren't dillusioned about what they were doing and why.

[/ QUOTE ]
But those responsible for things like the Crusades weren't? Awfully convenient for you to dismiss the fruits atheism has borne while attributing faults in certain leaders as an indictment against all of religion...

[Brom]

OK massacres have been comitted by both atheists and religous folk. But it could be said that religion was the root cause at more of them.

Think of this. If none of the religous killers had any religious beliefs to fuel them then much less genocides would have occurred. But if all of the athiest mass murderers had been of a religion, probably more killings would have happened.

[bunny]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
OK massacres have been comitted by both atheists and religous folk. But it could be said that religion was the root cause at more of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
More of what? Deaths? I highly doubt that even if you added up all the "Christian wars" and Inquisitions (none of which are defended much nowadays) they wouldn't hold a candle to the number of people killed by atheism. I fail to see how religion is the root cause of the mass murder under an ideology that preaches the non-existence of God. Without God, individual lives don't mean much and such mass murder can be justified more easily. If there is a God, then there is purpose to life and individual life DOES mean something and isn't to be snuffed out through mass murder.

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this. If none of the religous killers had any religious beliefs to fuel them then much less genocides would have occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is wrong. Religion was just one of the many excuses those in the past used to justify their actions. If they weren't relgious, there would have been other excuses.

[ QUOTE ]
But if all of the athiest mass murderers had been of a religion, probably more killings would have happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
If those atheists practiced Christianity, then those killings would most likely not have happened. But remove religion and it is easier to justify such terrible things.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK Hopey here goes. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church concerning just grounds for going to war:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Also:

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.


So let's see how nuclear retaliation against Iran might square with that:

Lasting, grave and certain damage

A nuclear strike by Iran, either directly or through surrogates to whom they have given such a device, on western nations or Israel meets this criterion.

All other means to bring about a peaceful resolution have been shown to impractical or ineffective

Note that in the ultimatum I proposed Iran be given, that they are both being given a chance to avoid war first, and also only being asked to agree to conditions which are just, i.e. renounce support for terrorism against any state in the world and their threats to wipe out Israel, and also to give up developing nuclear weapons whose sole purpose is either to carry out those threats or avoid conventional military retaliation for sponsoring terrorism.

Serious prospects for success

Nothing more serious and successful than a nuclear attack when the enemy's ability to retaliate in kind has been removed.

Means proportionate to the end

Either retaliation for an actual nuclear strike, or prevention of such a strike when the prospects for same are highly likely, is a proportionate means, although one certain to inflict great civilian casualties as well.


Now I will admit that many catholic theologians would disagree with my views, but note that the catechism says that the prudential moral judgement for the means used rests with those charged with protecting the public good, i.e. our political leaders. The main reason some other catholics would disagree with such a nuclear strike is that I have advocated a pre-emptive strike, and pre-emptive to the degree of not just having intel that such a strike is imminent, but of preventing their avowed determination to produce such weapons.

Such a pre-emptive strike is justified in my mind by both the threats Iranian political leaders have made, and by their support of terrorists, and likely such support in the future which logically is likely to include nuclear weapons. It should be noted, that although it is true that producing a crude nuclear device and actually installing it on a ballistic missile or having the air cabpability to get to a distant country undamaged and drop it are two very different things. However, both China and Russia have shown a willingness to supply Iran with advanced weapons systems, and likely will with medium range missiles as well. In addition, intelligence sources believe that Iranian leaders favor as a method of use having terrorists drive nuclear devices into target cities and detonating them, a method very hard for us to detect in advance.

So again, I am all in favor of diplomacy and when that fails as it has, giving Iran via ultimatum a chance to back away from the precipice. But in view of the horrendous casualties that both Israel and western nations could suffer from a nuclear weapon by an enemy who has made such threats to "wipe out" another country, then we must not allow Iran to develop such weapons, and such effective action to prevent same will necessarily produce large collateral civilian casualties.

Although with other nuclear superpowers we can only retaliate after the fact, we can and should prevent rogue nations from becoming regional nuclear powers when they are so hostile. And we must use effective means to do so.

I do not relish the prospect of using such measures, and pray that it won't be necessary. But I also will not shrink from using such measures to prevent extreme regimes morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in their hostile intentions from acquiring the means to deal death and detruction to ourselves and our friends.

[madnak]

Why are you ending your time here on SMP? And is trolling really the way to go with a bang? It's more likely you'll go with a fade and a sizzle and not a lot of respect.

What are your motivations here?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you ending your time here on SMP? And is trolling really the way to go with a bang? It's more likely you'll go with a fade and a sizzle and not a lot of respect.

What are your motivations here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never did come to know the exact meaning of "trolling". The gist I got is that it's someone who just lurks and doesn't post much. That WON'T ever be me! -lol If I'm reading, I'm posting. I couldn't stop myself from chiming in. There'll be no fade or sizzle. Or did I just do something to "troll" in my previous post?

Btw- Why would I lose respect for deleting 2+2 from my bookmarks?

[madnak]

Trolling is making provocative or incendiary statements in order to stir up drama or controversy.

You said SMP, not 2+2. So why are you leaving the site all the sudden after 1400 posts?