Chesterton on Religious Wars

"Oh, you kings, you kings!" cried out Adam, in a burst of scorn. "How humane you are, how tender, how considerate! You will make war for a frontier, or the imports of a foreign harbour; you will shed blood for the precise duty on lace, or the salute to an admiral. But for the things that make life itself worthy or miserable—how humane you are! I say here, and I know well what I speak of, there were never any necessary wars but the religious wars. There were never any just wars but the religious wars. There were never any humane wars but the religious wars. For these men were fighting for something that claimed, at least, to be the happiness of a man, the virtue of a man. A Crusader thought, at least, that Islam hurt the soul of every man, king or tinker, that it could really capture."

~The Napoleon of Notting Hill

Sinking to even greater depths

Not only shall I produce no content, not only am I embedding other peoples videos, videos that are already viral, I go the extra mile and embed videos of songs no one in their right mind would want to hear. What do I contribute? Nothing except grouping related items. Enjoy. ... or rather despair.

No, YOU'RE wrong!

[Warning: long rant on religion and politics follows]

So someone recently made the statement that a Catholic who supported the the invasion of Iraq must be just as morally confused as someone who is pro-choice.  Although I provided a clear and concise rebuttal to the originator of the statement ("your stoopid"), I thought I'd explore this statement in a little more detail.

First off, "moral confusion" is an imprecise and ambiguous phrase, so when I use it what I really mean (and what I assume the original commentator meant) is "morally incorrect."  "You're confused" as I usually see it used in this context seems to be intended as a more polite way of saying "you're wrong," except it's not more polite because everyone knows what it means, and condescending because it implies the other person isn't emotionally capable of dealing with someone telling them they're wrong.

Let's summarize why someone might be pro-choice (this has been discussed at length on this blog):

1. Unborn babies aren't human, so abortion is not an act that murders a human.

2. There's nothing inherently wrong with murdering innocent people.

3. Unborn babies are human, but it's okay to murder them because they aren't born (or crossed some arbitrary development threshold).

Note that I am assuming that we all accept that something that is inherently immoral is always morally wrong (i.e., if under some circumstances an act is not wrong, then it was not inherently so: the ends cannot justify the means).  Item #1 represents "moral confusion" by virtue of incorrect facts.  It is morally correct under the premise that unborn babies aren't human, but biology indicates otherwise.  Item #2 represents a point of view that most people do not hold, and I don't honestly think the original commentator believes that all those who support the war hold this view.  Item #3 is only morally correct with the introduction of a new moral principle that specifically excludes humans of some developmental stage or status from the prohibition against murder.  I have never seen a justification, much less a clear statement, of this new principle.  This also requires item #2, although supporters of abortion rarely admit it.  The only other possible position for someone who supports legal abortion is that it is the immoral murder of an innocent human and should not be prohibited by government.  This is an unusual view of the role of government.

In order for supporters of the war to be guilty of the same moral confusion as pro-choicers, then it must be because they believe that fighting a war is not inherently immoral, and possibly that there is some special reason that the invasion of Iraq need not be justified according to traditional just war theory.  But the Church teaches explicitly that waging war is not inherently immoral, and proponents of the war that argue it is justified within the traditional just war theory (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) do not require some new moral principle (example example example).  Therefore, proponents of the war in Iraq (including one singled out by the original commentator) clearly do not suffer the same "moral confusion" as pro-choicers in any meaningful sense.

The only other context given with the original offending comment was that the "morally confused" should have realized, after five years of tragedy, that the original decision was unjust.  This implies that the unintended, undesired, unforeseen consequences can affect whether a decision is just after it has been made, which leads to a ridiculous impossibility of making moral judgments, since all possible effects of a decision cannot be foreseen.

It is a logic error (and perhaps a lack of charity) to assume that those who seem to be wrong on a moral issue must be suffering from deficient moral reasoning.   Anyone can understand how identical logic applied to different premises can lead to different conclusions.

The only other statement by the original commentator I wish to comment on is "it is a reflection of ideology, not considered thought, to think that."  But how can one think that which is not thought?  Please be more clear.  Did you mean, "it is a reflection of belief not based on reason"?  But that is false on the face of it: as I showed above, the position (support for the war) is reasoned from facts and moral principles.  As far as I can tell, this statement means nothing.

Comments are welcome.

War, It's Good for You and Good for Me.

So for those of you who haven't been playing Sam & Max: Season 1 (what is wrong with you?!), this is what you're missing out on.



In the latest episode, "Abe Lincoln Must Die", Max runs for president against an evil animated Abraham Lincoln Monument. After Max wins, Lincoln goes on a rampage and you must stop him. This of course requires you get into the war room, but the Secret Service Guy won't let anyone in the war room unless it's a time of war, so you must get the Dakotas - North, South, and West - to declare war on each other to give our furry heroes Sam & Max access to the nation's unlimited supply of ICBMs. Once you start the war, the Secret Service Agent launches into this musical number.

And, of course, hilarity ensues.