Down yonder a reader writes:
Mr. Akin,
What is your position on the Iraq War? I know that the late Holy Father
as well as the current Holy Father were opposed to it. I just don’t
believe it qualifies as a just war. Where is your evidence that it
qualifies? Why do you think it’s a good idea for Catholics to support
it? Have you lost your mind?I wonder what you think of my website?
This comment was posted at 12:06 p.m., Pacific Time.
Then, at 12:44 p.m., the same commenter posted:
By the way, your position of same-sex "marriage" is good. However,
neoconservative foreign policy is not. I don’t see why just because
you’re an American you have to support immoral war policy.
Then, after someone pointed out that it’s rather rude to ask "Have you lost your mind?" before you at least know the answer to the prior question, the previous commenter posted at 1:21 p.m.:
Good idea. I retract the question "Have you lost your mind?" at least for now anyway.
Then, at 2:33 p.m. the commenter posts on his own blog that
I have been unable to get Jimmy Akin’s answer to the question I posed
to him: what qualifies the invasion of Iraq as a just war according to
the Catholic Doctrine? I will be honest: at the outset of the war, I
was a more or less passive supporter of it. However, now I oppose it
because I believe it does not meet the criteria for a just war as found
in Catholic teaching. Both the late Holy Father and the current Holy
Father were opposed to it. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said before the
outset of the war, the pretext of a preemptive war cannot be found in
the Catechism. He also said that the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the
US was unjustified. Since the start of the war in 2003, all of the
original premises for going to war have been discredited: no weapons of
mass destruction were found, there is no evidence of a link with al
Quaeda, etc. The war has proved enormously costly both in civilian
casualties, lives of American soldiers lost, and an enormous amount of
money has been spent. More lives continue to be lost and more money
continues to be spent. In my opinion, the neoconservative idea that the
United States should force rogue nations to adopt Western-style
democracy at gunpoint is overly idealistic.
To all this I have to say: Kid! Cut back on the caffeine! ‘Kay?
I know that you may be part of the videogame generation (your blog profile says you’re a university student) and may perceive life as moving at breakneck speed, but it simply is not realistic to post a blog comment at 12:06 p.m. asking me a question and then two hours and twenty-seven minutes later be declaiming to the world that you have been "unable" to get my answer to the question.
I know that as a result of a variety of causes (the Internet among them), many folks have gotten so used to instant info gratification that they have the attention span of a ferret on cocaine, but really!
As I pointed out just the other day, I don’t write blog posts during the day (when I’m at work) but at night (when I’m not). If you write at 12:06 p.m., I’m likely to not even see your query until I get home. Much less am I going to drop everything to write a post responding to a tendentiously-phrased query about a subject like the Iraq War.
Further, again as I explained the other day, a lot of folks write with queries that, much as I’d like to, I simply can’t answer for time reasons. Why am I going to jump your query up to the head of the list, above everyone else’s, in order to answer it?
And that assumes that I’m even going to answer it.
As I explained just yesterday, I don’t generally comment on political issues. I’m quite happy to explain the Church’s just war teaching, and in fact I have done so on numerous occasions. But when it comes to applying those criteria to particular conflicts, who says that I have any obligation to tell people what to think about a particular war when even JPII and B16 have not (despite what you may have heard) chosen to make authoritative statements on the subject and bind the consciences of the faithful?
If I choose to express an opinion or not, that’s my choice, but I certainly have no obligation to commit to a running debate with you on the subject just because you stick a remark in my combox.
Further, if you’re asking for my position on the war, why are you then assuming that I’m in favor of it? If you already know the answer to your question, why are you asking it?
And, puh-lease, don’t go around contemptuously labeling as "neoconservative" whatever position I may or may not privately hold. Would you like someone slapping insulting labels on what they perceived to be your position–and before you have even said what your position is?
Also . . . what does any of this have to do with Canada? That was, you may recall, the subject of the post into which you stuck your comment. To the extent it had to do with countries in general (including the U.S.), it emphasized how little I tend to comment on political matters involving them. If you have an off-topic query to make, well . . . that’s why God created e-mail.
Then there is the "Have you lost your mind?" query. Despite your later attempt to retract it, you need to learn a swift life lesson that this ain’t how it works. Having uttered words in someone’s presence, you can’t just magically take them back (unless you have access to a time-travelling Delorean). You can try to mitigate the damage you did to your case with them by expression contrition for having been so insulting with what you said, but saying "Good idea. I retract the question ‘Have you lost your mind?’ at least for now anyway" ain’t the way to do that.
Then we have the further query
I wonder what you think of my website?
This can be taken in either a snarky or a non-snarky sense. If it’s taken in a snarky sense then one would expect that there might be something on your blog that I would disapprove of (e.g., like comments about the Iraq War), however a check of your blog reveals that at the time you posted your comment you had written a grand total of seven blog posts, none of which had anything to do with the Iraq War, making it seem unlikely that you intended the question in a snarky sense.
That leaves us with the non-snarky sense. This one is also hard to explain because anyone who is sincerely seeking feedback on their blogging efforts should know enough not provoke and then insult the very person from whom they are seeking feedback.
Nevertheless, here are a few pieces of constructive criticism:
1) Light grey text on black background is a bad color scheme. It’s hard for the eye to read and will discourage people from reading your blog. If you want to attract readers, reverse the contrast.
2) It seems that you are still in the process of determining the name for your blog. That’s understandable, though you should get a snappier name for your blog than "Blog." A few days ago it was apparently called "Your Mom," which–while confusing–was snappier than "Blog." I know that it’s hard coming up with snappy names for things sometimes. Perhaps you might hold a "Name this blog!" contest among your readers or at least have a brainstorming session with your friends.
3) In regard to readers and friends, you’ll attract and keep more of both if you approach people positively rather than provoking and insulting them. Seasoned bloggers won’t mind engaging in friendly debates with you, but you can’t simply presume their answers and then start flailing away at them. You have to give people a chance to answer–if they want to–and treat them with the same respect that you’d like. Make a pain of yourself and few will link to you.
4) Oh yeah, and hit your "Enter" key often. If paragraphs get too long, they get hard on the eyes. Make sure you get a blank space between graphs, too. Much easier on the eyes.
I have been implementing some of your suggestions.
“Neoconservative” is an apt word to describe Mr. Bush’s foreign policy. In his State of the Union Address this February, for example, he talked about spreading freedom abroad through the concept of a pre-emptive war:
Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
If you agree with this type of policy, then you could be called a neocon. I know Fr. Neuhaus is known for being a neocon, and to what extend you disagree with him is unknown to me. But you haven’t denied your support for the war, yet, anyway. What’s your position?
ROFLOL @ “attention span of a ferret on cocaine”
I’d just like to note that Jimmy has much more patience than I think I’d be capable of in this situation. I don’t know that I’d be able to tolerate someone this rude on a blog that I work on in my free time to help people for no compensation. The christian charity that Jimmy demonstrates is a shining example that we should all try to replicate.
Yes, Jimmy you have such tact, poise and grace about you that I feel that you’ll be canonized one day–St. Jimmy has a nice ring to it! Now about ‘snarky’– is that really a word? LOL
Erik, perhaps a second attempt at actually reading Jimmy’s post would be in order. Especially the parts about “I don’t generally comment on political issues” and “If I choose to express an opinion or not, that’s my choice, but I certainly have no obligation to commit to a running debate with you on the subject just because you stick a remark in my combox.”
But perhaps you’ve honestly mistaken Jimmy for a political commentator. He does, after all, bear a striking resemblance to Ann Coulter, dontch’ya think?
Erik, you seem to be implementing all of Jimmy’s suggestions except the most important ones, i.e., the social and interpersonal ones.
Where a red-faced apology and attempt to mend fences would be in order, you continue to press forward with your pet issues, accosting a total stranger to explain and account for his views on a subject where he has invited no discussion.
I can only repeat Steve’s suggestion above that you re-read Jimmy’s post — and take it to heart. C. S. Lewis once pointed out that we were all pups once, and it behooves the relatively more mature to deal tolerantly with the faux pas of callow youth. But it also behooves callow youth eagerly to accept the reproofs of the more mature. There’s some stuff in the OT wisdom literature on this you might want to look up.
What if you preemptively retract an insult? For instance, I’m planning on telling you tomorrow that your beard/cowboy hat ensemble in your picture is outrJ and slightly silly. Of course, because I have not done that yet there’s no damage to mitigate or express contrition for.
P.S. Suzanne, yes, “snarky” is certainly a word, and I’m startled to learn from the link above that etymologists do not trace it to Lewis Carroll, as I had always thought its derivation was. It’s a great word in any case.
Incidentally, I can’t help noticing that Erik J’s (not Other Erik’s) reply above is the VERY FIRST reply in the thread.
I take this as an indication that among Jimmy’s suggestions that Erik has NOT yet implemented is the very first one… about laying off the caffeine.
Too bag blog post’s don’t give the time they are posted. I’m wondering how much time went by from the time Jimmy hit “Post” to Erik hit “Post” in the combox.
I’m also curious to see the spike in Jimmy’s hit count for the week. I’ve got a feeling there’s been a rapid fire F5 campaign going on.
Go Jimmy!
I saw that comment thread yesterday and the first thing I thought of was, What does the war in Irag or ‘neoconservative’ foreign policy have to do with Canada and homosexual marriage? It’s been about 20 years since I’ve been in college, but I do have memories of lots of late night bull sessions that didn’t follow any real rational train of thought… usually after the keg was almost tapped out.
Cheers, [hic]
First of all Erik . . . Congratulations on entering the Catholic Church! Welcome home! My the Holy Spirit guide you ever closer to the Truth that is Christ through the Church He founded on earth! And I wish your mother the same as she goes through RCIA.
“But you haven’t denied your support for the war, yet, anyway.”
But why should he, Erik? Just because Mr Akin has a blog does not mean he or his fellow JA.o bloggers must weigh in on every subject known to man, just those they find interesting. I’d direct your attention to the list of categories on the left-hand green column. Do you see the words “Iraq,” “War,” “Politics,” etc, that would in any way lead you to believe the current war in Iraq is a major focus of this blog? Do you feel the need to address every topic under the sun on your blog, or just what interests you? Personally, were I to start a blog, it would focus on the “baptized imagination” in regards to fiction, poetry, music, etc. Not that I’d refrain totally from commentary on subject matter outside of those boundaries, but it wouldn’t at all be my primary focus. (Now if I only had the time!)
Jimmy’s blog started out with an apologetics focus but it’s evolved in the last year to include many of his other interests & recently he’s even added other writers who add to the blog in unique & wonderful ways. One of the reasons I really enjoy JA.o is because it’s not a political blog – which is not to say it’s issue free, because it’s writers are very hard-hitting, thoughtful, & moving when it comes to the issues that spark them to write. Besides, there are other blogs, like Southern Appeal, who do politics very well. I think you’d like that one, Erik.
And Steven . . . thanks for the link to The Word Detective! I’ve never heard of the site before. Looks like a great one!
Jimmy, I appreciate a lot that you give advice to younger people, but isn’t “kid” quite perojative when assigned to a person in the age of a university student?
“Neoconservative” is an apt word to describe Mr. Bush’s foreign policy.
It has always been my understanding that the term “neoconservative” most often describes economic attitudes and ideas.
Is this not correct?
You commented on his fonts, so I’ll add a comment on yours…
Don’t use serif fonts where they will be primarily displayed and viewed on a CRT. Using sans-serif fonts exclusively on web sites will impact the sites usability significantly. Your css links can add a print-only version that includes serif fonts if you like.
Don’t use font size of “small” for the bulk of your content. That does a disservice to readers with impaired vision, or those who use high-resolution monitors, such as myself. Every time I read your blog I have to use the browsers “increase font size” feature to make it readable. Yours is the single blog out of a dozen I read that makes me do this.
Sans-serif fonts are harder on the eyes, especially when the text is long. The use of a serif font aids continuous reading.
>>It has always been my understanding that the term “neoconservative” most often describes economic attitudes and ideas.>>
No, Pat Buchanan has defined the term “neoconservative” clearly and authoritatively. See here, for example. http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2806
And everyone knows that Pat Buchanan’s authority comes straight from the mouth of God.
Neo-conservative has become a sort of catch-all insult among certain segments of the population (e.g., liberals and paleo-conservatives). It is very close to becoming a pejorative like fundamentalist, meaning only someone who is more hawkish, more capitalist, or (in the religious sense) more magisterially orthodox than we like, as fundamentalist has come to merely mean someone who is too religious or orthodox for our tastes. Theocrat has undergone a similar devolution, since some lefties are now using it to describe anyone who opposes abortion and gay marriage and the complete expulsion of anything remotely religious from the public square – as if America was a theocracy for the first 175+ years of its existence (which is patently ridiculous). Will the verbicides never cease?
You may call it what you like, but still, Jimmy Akin has taken the wrong side on the Iraq war, and Pat Buchanan has taken the correct side. That’s how I see it.
You may call it what you like, but still, Jimmy Akin has taken the wrong side on the Iraq war, and Pat Buchanan has taken the correct side. That’s how I see it.
Erik,
“Wrong side”? And you make this pronouncement based on your knowledge of classified, high level intelligence, right?
Pat Buchanan…he’s *so* dreamy!
🙂
You may call it what you like, but still, Jimmy Akin has taken the wrong side on the Iraq war, and Pat Buchanan has taken the correct side. That’s how I see it.
Unless you have the ability to read minds, you don’t know what Jimmy’s position on the war is. Why do you continue to assume what you don’t know in such a way as to create conflict? That’s both uncharitable and rude, and it also precludes the possiblity of having a civilized and intelligent conversation. Some parts of the internet may be lawless where trolling and flamebait are accepted, but this (and other Catholic blogs) isn’t once of them.
The reasons given to the public for the Iraq War have been discredited. So unless the administration lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war, then in my view it’s unjust.
Publius: “Unless you have the ability to read minds, you don’t know what Jimmy’s position on the war is.”
You’re right, and if I have misstated his view, I apologize.
I don’t know if I have ever seen a thread so tedious and yet so compelling– it’s like I’m watching a car accident over cyberspace. Erik, “Have I lost my mind?”
There have been posts on his blog which suggest that Jimmy is for the Iraq War: Check out any number of posts on this page: http://jimmyakin.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?q=iraq+war&s=SS
Somebody stop him!
He’s commenting so fast he’s begun to backtrack in time and loop himself!
You’re right, and if I have misstated his view, I apologize.
Another pseudo-apology. Oy. You should apologize for imputing (what you consider to be) error to Jimmy without evidence regardless of whether he holds to the error in his own mind.
here have been posts on his blog which suggest that Jimmy is for the Iraq War:
Can you point to an individual post where Jimmy actually supports the war?
It just occurred to me that Erik might not be what he seems. He might be an alien agent from Capybarus 7 sent on a reconnaisance mission as a prelude to replacing several key persons with alien imposters. Obviously Jimmy is his current mark and he is testing his patience and personality with these posts, seeing how he respondes to baseless accusations and how long his patience will last. I highly suspect that, were the government to invoke the Patriot act and seize his computer and library records, they’d find that he has checked out an inordinant number of books about the Atkins diet and a terrifying number of H.P. Lovecraft books, as well as downloaded every episode of Enterprise off of the p2p networks.
Watch your back, Jimmy. Watch your back!
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/iraqi_catholics.html
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/05/the_connection.html
In these two posts, Jimmy gives reasons why he thinks the war is justified. Nowhere in his blog does he give evidence to the contrary. In fact, he complains about people “whining” about the Iraq War. The evidence points not to Jimmy opposing the Iraq War, but to him being in favor of it. If he is against it, why is he listing only evidence in favor of it?
Erik . . . Have you actually read any of Jimmy’s blog entries you guide folks to on the URL you posted at 2:13pm?
Jimmy makes not one statement either pro or con re: the Iraq war in any of them. (I stopped reading after page 3.) One is about Elton John’s complaint to the BBC that there’s a neo-McCarthyism re: the Iraq war towards celebrities who are against it. One is about the last episode of Star Trek: Enterprise. One is even about the Land of the Lost coming out on DVD! What are you trying to prove? Just because the words “Iraq” & “war” have appeared somewhere in the text of 4 pages worth of posts on JA.o entries (or in the com boxes), doesn’t prove Mr Akin, or any of his fellow bloggers, has come out in favor of or against the war. The entries seek to parse or fisk various news articles or statements made by various individuals in light of Catholic teaching. No opinion re: the Iraq war is ever given that I can find.
Please, in charity, read Jimmy’s blog. Get the tone of it. Learn his humor. Then comment. I’m sure you’ll find he & his fellow bloggers are very fair, logical, & rational. I’ve never seen one of them, Jimmy included, come out in favor of the Iraq war on this or any other blog & I’ve been a readed since the begining!
Tedious is a very apt word, Tim.
Erik,
There are a couple things about Saddam:
1. He repeatedly violated the terms of surrender from the first Gulf War. That is a reason for the use of force.
2. Related to #1, he possessed weapons he wasn’t supposed to have and failed to provide proof that he was complying with his weapons disposal.
If the goal was to remove Saddam, then why couldn’t the United States have worked with the U.N. rather than making a unilateral decision to go to war? It harmed the US’s relationship with the United Nations.
Besides, what you are forgetting is that Catholics CAN oppose the war and be good Catholics. Not only the popes, but also people such as Pat Buchanan, have spoken against the Iraq War.
[i]If the goal was to remove Saddam, then why couldn’t the United States have worked with the U.N. rather than making a unilateral decision to go to war? It harmed the US’s relationship with the United Nations. [/i]
The UN refused to act. They issued 17 toothless resolutions regarding Saddam’s violations. Was #18 going to be any different?
I’m not impressed with the UN. Doing the right thing is more important than keeping everyone at a quasi-diplomatic group happy.
Besides, what you are forgetting is that Catholics CAN oppose the war and be good Catholics.
Who has said otherwise?
Besides, what you are forgetting is that Catholics CAN oppose the war and be good Catholics….i>
Who said otherwise? This falls under the category of prudential judgment.
In these two posts, Jimmy gives reasons why he thinks the war is justified.
No, he doesn’t. In the one case, he links to an article without real comment that seeks to establish links between Iraq and al Qaida. In the other he presents the views of Iraqi Catholics. In neither case does he say, “I support the Iraq war and the above is why.”
Two suggestions for a new name to your blog:
“Under The Bridge” and “The New McCarthyite.”
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/iraqi_catholics.html
Erik, this entry was all about how Iraqi Catholics feel about the war, not Jimmy. No opinion is given by our gracious host.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/05/the_connection.html
Where do you find an opinion in this entry? It’s just a link to an article about a possible connection between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden. Again . . . no opinions.
Italics off.
Itallics off!
Publius . . . get outta my head.
Gene,
We Psi-Cops are given a greater latitude than other telepaths: get used to it. 😉
“Besides, what you are forgetting is that Catholics CAN oppose the war and be good Catholics.”
The reverse is also true.
“It harmed the US’s relationship with the United Nations”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. When the UN stops supporting – practically mandating – abortion in 3rd world nations, I’ll be pro-UN.
LOL, Publius! You must be level 9. I’m only a level 6. 🙁
Wow. It looks like you and I have got the recent comments cornered.
BTW, like all Psi-Cops, I’m a P-12.
Erik:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this thread is about the Iraqi war, or at least about Jimmy’s views of the Iraqi war.
It is not. It is about your unacceptable behavior — and refusal to learn from your mistakes.
What is your position on frozen embryos, Erik? Your views on papal primacy are good, but your stance on frozen embryos is not. I just don’t see why you have to support immoral bioscience policy. Are you out of your mind? Wait, I retract that last question, at least for now.
In all the time I have been writing this post, I have been unable to get Erik Johnson to clarify his views on frozen embryos. Erik has taken the wrong side on this issue. That’s how I see it.
Actually, since I can’t read minds, I admit that I don’t know what Erik’s view of this issue is. So Erik, if I’ve misstated your view, I apologize.
The difference between these comments, Erik, and your own is that mine happen to be on subject. This is Jimmy’s blog, to discuss such subjects as he chooses to raise. You are a guest here, and ever since showing up you’ve been tracking mud all over the place.
Continuing to harrass Jimmy and insisting on talking about what you want to talk about, rather than what is under discussion on this blog, is probably not going to get you an answer, any more than you would get an answer from Benedict XVI if you started harrassing him about some war that began under his tenure as pope. (Yes, he commented about the Iraqi war, but that was before he became pope.)
And the reason you won’t get an answer from either Benedict or Jimmy is not because they don’t have an opinion, but because they both know the one fact that you seem to be confused about: that this is a subject about which good Catholics may legitimately disagree — and because many people, like yourself, are altogether too likely to invest far too much weight to Benedict’s opinion or Jimmy’s opinion, to the point that someone agreeing or disagreeing with one or the other could actually become a stumbling-block to faith.
Neither Benedict nor Jimmy is going to start going after people who disagree with them on such questions of judgment the way you’re going after Jimmy for what you presumptuously assume are his views. You are not doing Benedict’s work here. You are only making a nuisance of yourself. Please stop.
As one who has been rude and obnoxious on this blog, I can authoritatively say that Erik was being rude and obnoxious. That said, we are not dealing with a situation where politics is never discussed on this blog although the posts have become less frequent. One could make a reasonable inference on Jimmy’s position, but I don’t think Jimmy has a blog so that he can be crucified by every Tom, Dick and Harry.
There is something Jimmy didn’t go into, but I will. This space is a volunteer effort on Jimmy’s part. Maybe you and possibly others want to fire the volunteers, but instead of getting something better, you will get nothing. The audience you presented your view to is not yours, it is Jimmy’s. He has gotten it by his own hard work and the respect he has earned. Neither you nor I have any right to his celebrity to promulgate our own views no matter how “right” we think they are. We are guests in Jimmy’s little space on the Internet. We have been priveleged to have been allowed to speak at the table. There are very few forums available for the wonderful debate and learning that occurs here.
I’m not saying this to give a lecture. I have said things here far more obnoxious than you, only lengthier. I was not in the right to do so, and I’m telling you that you are not either.
Ode to Pat Buchanan
Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more manly and more confederate.
Brutal tyrants and terrorists in Iraq you shall not slay,
Your giant walls stop those who immigrate.
Too hot the acid of your stomach burns,
Yet often in the land of black gold has America sinned;
And thou guardest against all Republican leftward turns,
These free trade pacts we must rescind.
With Red China and Red Cuba nor truck or trade,
Neither with America, those parts of which are seamy;
Nor even Hitler shoud we have slayed,
Oh Pat Buchanan, you’re so dreamy:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
No longer neocons, this land of them be free.
I was compelled to make the statements I did because I felt that Jimmy Akin was manipulating me into taking his side regarding the Iraq War. What Jimmy can maybe do is to clear up whatever posts that he made in regard to the war and explain what their purpose was and why they only told one side. If he doesn’t want to do that, then I accept that, but at least I shouldn’t have to apologize for expressing how I feel I have been manipulated.
I was compelled to make the statements I did because I felt that Jimmy Akin was manipulating me into taking his side regarding the Iraq War.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Moreover, I doubt anyone else does either. And I still don’t know how you supposedly know what Jimmy’s side is.
>>I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Moreover, I doubt anyone else does either. And I still don’t know how you supposedly know what Jimmy’s side is.>>
Jimmy Akin speaks very authoritatively. When he speaks, people listen. Even if he just hints at his position, which I contend that he did, people will take it seriously, and may start to adopt a position of being for the war, since the posts only give positive accounts of the situation in Iraq.
I’m sorry, though, if I offended you or anyone on this forum.
You consider that “manipulation”? How you can go through university and avoid having seizures in the middle of class is beyond me. Could it be that Mr. Akin doesn’t think the war was just, but at the same time doesn’t think it was the greatest tragedy in history or an evil conspiracy by the administration to drive down gas prices and enrich oil companies? That he might find an occasional story that conflicts with the far left’s talking points interesting without agreeing with the war supporters? No, of course not. That would be too reasonable.
If Jimmy posted a lot on the war and only posted positive stuff, then I’d say you might have a point (though “manipulation” is still ludicrous). He does, however, post very little about the subject, so your point is void, your argumentation illogical, and your manner offensive. If you want to start a debate about Iraq, do it on your own blog, or go to a blog where it’s taking place. Hijacking someone else’s blog to debate your own hobbyhorse is bad netiquette even when done politely.
Erik-
Why do you consider it manipulation for someone to present material that runs contrary to your point of view? On that view your statements about the Iraq War being “immoral” are manipulative as well.
It’s not manipulation, it’s called discourse. Or are you of the opinion that there can be only one authentically “Catholic” view of the war in Iraq?
>>Why do you consider it manipulation for someone to present material that runs contrary to your point of view?>>
Once again, it’s because of Jimmy Akin’s voice of authority (even though he has none – in the Catholic Church he’s just another layperson). He’s sort of a know-it-all.
Now no one would want to disagree with JIMMY AKIN’S view on the war in Iraq, would they? That’s why I consider it to be manipulation.
Not like that Pat Buchanan, who really *does* know it all, and who never ever feels the need to tell anyone about it or manipulate or force his views on others.
OK, I think I’ve figured this out. Erik feels that he and his blog are not getting enough attention so he came stomping over here, knocking over the furniture and tracking mud on the carpet and harassing his host for his (alleged) opinion on the war in Iraq, just so we’ll all notice him.
And it’s worked – sort of. It’s hard not to notice somebody when they’re being so rude and obnoxious. I don’t know if Jimmy ever bans people from the site but he might want to give it a try with young Erik. He’s certainly doing his best to earn it.
Now no one would want to disagree with JIMMY AKIN’S view on the war in Iraq, would they? That’s why I consider it to be manipulation.
If I knew what Jimmy’s view of Iraq was, I’d feel free to disagree with it. I disagree with him that Enterprise is particularly worth watching, that no carb diets are the way to go, etc, etc, etc. In fact, lots of people disagree with Jimmy. Read the comments and you’ll see that. In fact, if you’d read Da Rulz you’d see that, since Rule 20 specifically forbids disagreeing with Jimmy in comments on very specific, sensitive pastoral issues. That you think, based on nothing, that no one would dare disagree with The Great and Powerful Akin merely reinforces my previously stated opinions about your behavior and logic here.
To the extent that I talk about matters of theological principle, I hope that folks do take what I have to say seriously, but to the extent that they do, I suspect it has to do with the fact that I am very *careful* about what I say theologically (as is especially needful since I am a layman and not invested with any kind of theological authority).
I strive to use my terms precisely, back myself up with sources, and spell out arguments clearly. In other words, I show my work. I also try to shy away from theological speculation and either try not to give mere opinions or to clearly label them as such. In other words, I try not to shoot my mouth off theologically.
I feel myself much more at liberty to express opinions on non-theological matters, such as what kind of TV shows and movies I like. Anyone who wants to disagree with me there, fine and dandy.
If I don’t comment on politics that often, it has to do with the fact that politics exists in a grey zone between moral theology and practical application. Principle is partially engaged but there is still very wide room for disagreement.
As a result, I don’t like commenting on it very much precisely *because* it falls in this grey zone. One can’t be as rigorous as politics as one can with theology, but one can’t be as free with politics as one can with matters of taste. My solution is to simply avoid it most of the time.
I also am not an expert in politics, though there are plenty out there for a person to consult if he wants to.
Erik,
So, you think Jimmy is a manipulative know-it-all who used his Jedi mind tricks to covertly force you to be a Neo-Con? And now, having broken free, you want to, what, expose him for the Svengali he is and turn the Catholic world against him?
Erik, I challenge you to find another apologist of prominence comparable to Jimmy, Catholic or otherwise, who is more careful than he is about insisting on distinguishing what is Church teaching from what is his own opinion.
Find me another apologist who works harder than he does to prevent star-struck youths from feeling obliged to buy into everything he says or believes. Find me another apologist who is more circumspect about attributing authority to his own views or opinions, who is clearer that it’s okay to disagree with him about stuff.
If you like Buchanan so much (not that he’s an apologist), how often have you witnessed him write or say “De gustibus non disputandum est”?
For that matter, Erik, how often do you take that attitude yourself?
Buchanan is wonderful. He is one of our greatest Catholic politicians, and he is loyal to the teachings of the Church where other Catholic politicians are against them. What makes you think Buchanan is a lousy Catholic politician the way that Ted Kennedy is?
What makes you think Buchanan is a lousy Catholic politician the way that Ted Kennedy is?
What makes you perpetually misrepresent other people’s position, when you aren’t making them up out of whole cloth? If you want to box against thin air, do so on your own blog. Don’t waste our time.
Yes Steven, what makes you think Buchanan is a lousy Catholic politician the way Ted Kennedy is?!!!11!! I know that’s exactly what you were thinking because I can read your mind. Now I demand an answer!
I feel myself much more at liberty to express opinions on non-theological matters, such as what kind of TV shows and movies I like. Anyone who wants to disagree with me there, fine and dandy.
How dare you Jimmy express your own personal opinions on which movies you like?!!111!!???
Don’t you know that the Vatican has told us which movies we’re supposed to like? The authoritative list can be found right here:
http://www.usccb.org/fb/vaticanfilms.htm
I can’t believe as a Catholic Apoligist you didn’t know about that! And you get payed for that?
Pat Buchanan likes those movies on that list and only those movies on that list.
Oh. My. Gosh.
This thread has given me a much-needed laugh after a very long day with the kids. Billy, that ode was just priceless. I think it should be your first post on your new blog, titled, “NeoCons Make Baby Jesus Cry!”
Yeah, this thread was kind of like playing Whack-A-Mole.
Jimmy, it must be neat to have people so cowed by your SUPER LOGIC POWERS that they would never want to disagree with you publicly. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility!
I refrained from commenting because I didn’t want to help make this thread a bigger circus than it already is, but I just have to say that I found myself checking this site several times today, hoping for more to read. (No offense, Mr. Akin, but I’m usually a once-a-day visitor.)
It’s like Tim said, about fifty comments back: I feel like I’m “watching a car accident over cyberspace.”
Thanks for the amusement, everybody.
Let’s clear up a few things.
I disagree with some of Jimmy’s statements about the Muslim faith. He seems to be opposed to it. What he doesn’t understand is that it’s very likely that the terrorist elements in Islam have very little to do with “Fundamentalist Islam” itself. I believe that Mr. Buchanan has stated this. In fact, the proportion of terrorist Muslims is no greater than the proportion of Christians who are Ku Klux Klan members. I think that Jimmy Akin is fueling hatred towards Islam. While I know that it is his duty to convert people to Catholicism, I think it is intellectually dishonest to fault the Islamic religion itself for militant Jihadist terrorist elements within that faith.
Erik Johnson, may I suggest the forums at Catholic Answers? Many many more people will be willing to spend many many more long hours chatting you up on whatever topic you see fit.
I disagree with Jimmy’s view of pine trees. He has instigated so much hatred towards them from neo-con Catholics. There are in fact no more pine trees in my yard than oaks, Jimmy. Stop spreading rumors about me. And what about the monkeys, Jimmy. Your neglect of their plight in Albania is shocking. Shocking!!!
“Now no one would want to disagree with JIMMY AKIN’S view on the war in Iraq, would they? That’s why I consider it to be manipulation.”
I must confess that it’s been entertaining reading through this comments thread. But at some point I feel the need to simply say, “For crying out loud, grow up and learn some manners!”
It’s like a bad car wreck… you know you should just drive by, not holding up traffic, but you just HAVE to look. Much like this list of comments… as tedious as it’s all gotten, I just HAVE to read. 🙂
And everyone knows that Pat Buchanan’s authority comes straight from the mouth of God.
*ROTFL*
“Erik, I challenge you to find another apologist of prominence comparable to Jimmy, Catholic or otherwise, who is more careful than he is about insisting on distinguishing what is Church teaching from what is his own opinion.”
AMEN! Very well said, Steven. This is why other Catholic bloggers routinely link to posts on JA.o. But, to be truthful, Michelle, TimJ, & SDG are just as thorough in their posts!
Erik, please take a nap.
Remember Whitney’s immortal words, “Crack is wack.” Live that in your life, man. If Erik had a point instead of talking points and an ajenda, it’d be a much funner conversation. It’s ok, buddy. We understand you have a beef. It’s just that you’re pontificating, instead of actually engauging in real diologue.
Whoever said it above is right–total trainwreck.
The trolls… they’re everywhere.
“I disagree with Jimmy’s view of pine trees. He has instigated so much hatred towards them from neo-con Catholics. There are in fact no more pine trees in my yard than oaks, Jimmy. Stop spreading rumors about me. And what about the monkeys, Jimmy. Your neglect of their plight in Albania is shocking. Shocking!!!”
“Jimmy:
When are you going to stop biting the heads off chickens (I mean, assuming you do that)?” [Reply to “Do Not Feed the Erik”]
…
::laughs for several minutes on end, runs out of oxygen, and passes out::