Scott McClellan flustered by question about obeying Ten Commandments

[conjur]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...005/02/20050201-7.html

Q Scott, last night, in an amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department came down in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and statehouses around the country. The question is, does the President believe in commandment number six, "Thou shalt not kill," as it applies to the U.S. invasion in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead. Next question. Ken, go ahead.

:laugh:

 

[miketheidiot]

lost like that member of the press corps just lost his seat

 

[fornax]

Ha-ha, good one Bush is about as much a Christian as Bin Laden is a Buddhist. Apparently Bush never got to the New Testament (provided he actually read the Bible). He seems to have been very impressed by all the blood and gore in the Old Testament and found the New Testament boring and un-American.

 

[DealMonkey]

Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. One can immediately detect that the principles are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist?they invoke the concerns of both models. Whilst this provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.

I'll not attempt to discern whether Iraq is or is not a just war, as I nor anyone here has the ability to truly determine that. As the pope said prior to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who would engage in a preemptive war bears grave moral and ethical responsibility to his own people and the people he is attacking in assuring that the war is just. Due to classified information and the relatively sorry state of intelligence prior to the war, the apparent justice (or lack thereof) that the administration/congress/senate bestowed on the war effort is known only to them.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.

I'm sure DealMonkey will thank you for your condescension.

 

[DealMonkey]

My first instinct is to declare the War in Iraq an "unjust war," but then I'm not well-versed in the ways of Christian loop-holes, if you know what I mean.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
My first instinct is to declare the War in Iraq an "unjust war," but then I'm not well-versed in the ways of Christian loop-holes, if you know what I mean.

It's not an issue of Christian or otherwise. Thomas Aquinas is considered one of the most influential philosophers around. I'd like you to point out one time where he uses any religious arguments in his just war theory. Or are you just being bigoted? I thought better of you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Cyclo, I was more referring to the OP who refers to the sixth commandment. I mean, as a Christian how do you justify killing when 'thou shall not kill' doesn't come with any caveats? I'm quite sure it can be justified, because I've seen it happen around here quite a bit, it's more a matter of me being astounded by the circumvention.

 

[nageov3t]

screw Iraq, what about the death penalty?

 

[EagleKeeper]

funny how many hipocrites can actually state that they live by the "ten commandments".

They are guideline to try and follow, not absolute rules that one must be punished for breaking.

If they were absolute, the the churches wouild be out of business.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
funny how many hipocrites can actually state that they live by the "ten commandments".

They are guideline to try and follow, not absolute rules that one must be punished for breaking.

If they were absolute, the the churches wouild be out of business.

Sure, they are a guideline to try and follow. And if you try to follow that line and fail, you're going to Hell. It's really quite simple.

 

[Dari]

Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Dari
Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

:roll: Hypocrisy is the foundation of the Republican platform. It is Republicans who don't respect or acknowledge the Ten Commandments. They use them as a club to attack others. They ignore them in their personal lives. That is why McClellan was flustered. It never occurred to them that they should follow the Commandments.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Dari
Bleeding hearts don't respect or acknowledge the other nine Commandments, but try to pin the President on 1. Hypocritical? Yeah, I think so. Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

God could've erred in writing the 6th anyway. Why? Vultures gotta eat. Maggots gotta eat.

Seek help. Then come back and try to explain just WTF you are talking about.
kthxbye

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Dari
Anyway. God is very forgiving so I think he'll let it pass so long as you pray for the dead.

Your permissive theology intrigues me. How many Hail Mary's for the Holocaust? A ballpark figure will do.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. One can immediately detect that the principles are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist?they invoke the concerns of both models. Whilst this provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.

I'll not attempt to discern whether Iraq is or is not a just war, as I nor anyone here has the ability to truly determine that. As the pope said prior to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who would engage in a preemptive war bears grave moral and ethical responsibility to his own people and the people he is attacking in assuring that the war is just. Due to classified information and the relatively sorry state of intelligence prior to the war, the apparent justice (or lack thereof) that the administration/congress/senate bestowed on the war effort is known only to them.

Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.


Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. One can immediately detect that the principles are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist?they invoke the concerns of both models. Whilst this provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.

I'll not attempt to discern whether Iraq is or is not a just war, as I nor anyone here has the ability to truly determine that. As the pope said prior to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who would engage in a preemptive war bears grave moral and ethical responsibility to his own people and the people he is attacking in assuring that the war is just. Due to classified information and the relatively sorry state of intelligence prior to the war, the apparent justice (or lack thereof) that the administration/congress/senate bestowed on the war effort is known only to them.

Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.


Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

I believe Congress has to declare war, and if they did so, well, I missed that press release.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. One can immediately detect that the principles are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist?they invoke the concerns of both models. Whilst this provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.

I'll not attempt to discern whether Iraq is or is not a just war, as I nor anyone here has the ability to truly determine that. As the pope said prior to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who would engage in a preemptive war bears grave moral and ethical responsibility to his own people and the people he is attacking in assuring that the war is just. Due to classified information and the relatively sorry state of intelligence prior to the war, the apparent justice (or lack thereof) that the administration/congress/senate bestowed on the war effort is known only to them.

Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.


Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

I believe Congress has to declare war, and if they did so, well, I missed that press release.

Well, they voted to give Bush the authority to use force *IF* diplomacy and inspections failed. Bush gave those all of 5 months.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the Christian right to explain that "Thou shall not kill" doesn't apply in wartime or in capital punishment cases. Please read the fine print, kthanx!

You're actually sentient (unlike the last few people I tried to talk ethics/philosophy with on this forum), so I'll see what I can do to explain. Don't have much time tonight, so I'll throw a link your way.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. One can immediately detect that the principles are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist?they invoke the concerns of both models. Whilst this provides just war theory with the advantage of flexibility, the lack of a strict ethical framework means that the principles themselves are open to broad interpretations. Examining each in turn draws attention to the relevant problems.

I'll not attempt to discern whether Iraq is or is not a just war, as I nor anyone here has the ability to truly determine that. As the pope said prior to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who would engage in a preemptive war bears grave moral and ethical responsibility to his own people and the people he is attacking in assuring that the war is just. Due to classified information and the relatively sorry state of intelligence prior to the war, the apparent justice (or lack thereof) that the administration/congress/senate bestowed on the war effort is known only to them.

Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.


Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

I believe Congress has to declare war, and if they did so, well, I missed that press release.

Well, they voted to give Bush the authority to use force *IF* diplomacy and inspections failed. Bush gave those all of 5 months.

Yeah and keep yourself reminded that the weapons inspectors had unfettered access in Iraq and were in the process of destroying Al Samoud missles (which went 15 miles beyond UN sanction rules).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.

Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

Thanks for proving that you didn't read anything about just war theory before trying to rip on Bush out of hand.

 

[alchemize]

So he recognized a troll for a troll.

Or are you suggesting that our government should be run singly and solely by Christian principles?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Are there WMDs? No.

Therefore, the war is unjust by definition.

Was it declared by a proper authority? No.

Again, unjust by defintion.

Thanks for proving that you didn't read anything about just war theory before trying to rip on Bush out of hand.

Thanks for proving that you rarely contribute to a thread.


Geez...what's with the trolls today?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Just War theory is extremely fungible. Although you allegedly subscribe to Thomas Aquinas' machinations you then punt when the rubber hits the road ie "was Bush War 2003 just".

The killing of your fellow man (by the teachings of Jesus Christ) is an unambiguous wrong. Jesus did not speak to many topics in detail but the notion of Christ "endorsing" a war with mortal weapons is ridiculous.

By the description of Thomas Aquinas it's quite debateable whether the invasion of Afghanistan was "just". Why?
1) Bush did not exhaust ALL other options before launching his attack.
2) Arguably it was tacitly sanctioned by the UN . . . then again Bush doesn't consider them an "authority".
3) Arguably attacking Afghanistan did address an injury . . . with the notable exception that the "people" that truly wronged the US were all Al Qaeda NOT Afghanistan. Clearly, Bush made no such distinctions b/c they "intentionally" avoided going after Al Qaeda cells active in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
4) There was little doubt that we would "win" so Bush easily clears ONE hurdle of the just war theory. Granted, it's quite obvious that Iraq is a whole different ballgame. Plus the very notion of winning a war on terror . . . by killing a bunch of people is suspect by definition.
5) Ultimate goal MUST be to re-establish peace . . . a peace "preferred" by ALL. Although suspect . . . I'm willing to give Bush that one when it comes to Afghanistan. Granted, it was quite a poo-hole before the war so arguably that was a low bar.
6) Violence MUST be proportional to the injury suffered. If you choose to measure the insult in lives then it's quite obvious that the Afghanistan War was clearly disproportionate. By definition, Iraq is off the chart.
7) Weapons must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. The earliest iterations of Just War theory arose during periods where combat was quite personal. But no one can reasonably argue that technology has a bearing on what is morally correct. Dropping JDAMs in the city, cluster bombs, land mines, AC-130 raining fire from the sky, etc etc are by definition . . . immoral weapons of war.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Thanks for proving that you rarely contribute to a thread.


Geez...what's with the trolls today?

I'm the only one here who has done anything but jerk off another liberal in here. If you want to mock what I posted, try to do so by actually addressing it instead of just pretending to be knowledgeable. This seems to be your favorite trick. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it.

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Just War theory is extremely fungible. Although you allegedly subscribe to Thomas Aquinas' machinations you then punt when the rubber hits the road ie "was Bush War 2003 just".

The killing of your fellow man (by the teachings of Jesus Christ) is an unambiguous wrong. Jesus did not speak to many topics in detail but the notion of Christ "endorsing" a war with mortal weapons is ridiculous.

Only had to read to #2 to see that you didn't read any of it either. BBD, meet Conjur.