Mark,
You run a very successful blog. Something like, what, five thousand people visit here every day? In any pool that large you will have everything from nutjobs to theologians to over-the-top verbal bomb-throwers. The silence is probably reflective of the fact that we take the, uh, variety for granted.
chirp, chirp.... chirp, chirp
Rich:
Why am I not comforted by the fact that I can have absolute certainly that the slightest criticism of Cheney's egregious claims will be defended to the death by multiple readers, but out of thousands of viewers, nobody will challenge a wicked call for mass murder.
It is indeed a pity. I don't think it so much is an issue of your readership so much as that those who are still interested in debating the Iraq War are all on the Right.
You can see an opposite problem in the comboxes at Crunchy Con, where discussions of the war inevitably descend into conspiracy theories and the most uncharitable interpretations possible of the US government.
Perhaps the silence that greets such ravings is the same sort of appalled silence that greets Captain Queeg when he starts rolling the little steel balls and raving.
That's exactly what it is in my case. Can't speak for anybody else, obviously, but I would very rarely attempt to answer somebody like this. When it's this far out, in fact, I assume the speaker is not Catholic. But even if he is, what he says is so self-evidently wrong that it doesn't seem to need comment.
"Why...nobody will challenge a wicked call for mass murder[?}"
Because he didn't advocate mass murder?
PVO
I think it may have to do with the scope of the disagreement. A claim that an official wilfully and consciously lied (as opposed to merely having been honestly but mistakenly convinced by insufficient evidence) is a reasonable claim and can be met with reasonable (if passionate) argument.
On the other hand, if it's taken seriously, a call for mass murder is not something to argue with; it's something to shut down. And if not taken seriously, then it's tasteless at best and stupid at worst, and again not worth responding to.
Remember the first rule of Catholic debate: Always assume the best intentions of your co-debaters. And remember the first rule of Internet debate: "Don't feed the trolls." If you really think these people are calling for genocide, Mark, ban them. They have nothing to contribute to a reasonable discussion.
mulopwepaul:
And I'm not saying you are a pitiful excuse for a Catholic making yet another pathetic excuse for mass murder, yet. Nor am I suggesting your contempt for America is palpable and your loathing for common decency is obvious, yet.
Yessirree, there's some warm sentiments anybody would want on their Christmas card.
From a non-American perspective it seems that Americans often idealise their chosen party, and then demonise the opposite one.
So for a Dem, the GOP is a fundamentalist, warmongering, theocracy who wants to throw women back into the stone age,
For a Republican, the Democrats are going to steal all your money in taxes, make you homosexual and are preparing to let the terrorists have open access to the country.
Hey Mark -- I just saw this guy's post and didn't bother answering because you already did. But even if you hadn't replied, I would have just ignored him in the interest of not feeding trolls.
For a Republican, the Democrats are going to steal all your money in taxes, make you homosexual and are preparing to let the terrorists have open access to the country.
But they are! 
You know Mark the other evening we were watching Tv and another lot of bomb blasts in Iraq and my wife turned to me and said, "Why don't they just put Saddam back in command."
It's tempting to think she's right.All those muderous minded com box people of yours would get their way by default and America could bring its troops home. And you would save a huge amount of traffic in your blog. QED.
Well, as for me, I've been busy for the past 2 days so looking at blogs has been out of the question. That said, I think that any use of the word "exterminate" is bad in almost every context, because it seems to hold no distinctions and seems to not allow for mercy at ALL.
Mark,
You would save people a large about of heartache if you would just not use the word Lie. By calling it a lie you imply that you know for sure that he knew the truth and was out to mislead us.
Call the WMD issue a mistake, a error or a gross misreading of the situation and I think that many more people would agree.
Lie is a morally loaded word that does not provide clarity to this debate.
He did not Lie. He and most of the Administration made a massive error and they should be held accountable. There should have been large numbers of CIA and other Intelligence people fired, but because it became a political issue so fast nothing was done.
Fred
"Heartache"
Yes, what could be more heartbreaking than the suggestion that a politician could be dishonest. Merciful heaven! What Christian soul can endure the fiercesome blast furnace of hate that roars out such terrible words.
But the suggestion that America should break the world record for mass murder by several orders of magnitude--from a Catholic no less. That's not a big problem at all. Just part of the colorful variety of options to members of the Patriotic Church.
Mark,
FWIW, I am a long time reader of your blog (since at least early 2003), and I LOVE it. I can not name any single blogger who more accurately speaks to what I think and feel, and how I approach faith, than you do.
All that being said, I usually don't even bother with the comments any longer (though I used to read them avidly). In particular with regards to posts on Iraq, WMD, torture, and traditionalism, I simply skip over them. As you said, they are far too often simply depressing.
I think that the crickets as often as not are because sane people are simply ignoring the crapola that so many who dominate your comment boxes spew out.
I'd be just as happy to see you turn them off if they are a source of consternation for you. Your blog would lose very little of what most folks come here for if you did. Maybe even if for only a while so as to drain off those who have for far too long dominated the discussions and driven many of us from bothering to join in.
Just my 2 cents.
Again, thanks for all you do. We the silent majority really do appreciate it.
We Catholics have a moral duty to keep all political discussions leading to and from the basic Christian commandments- Do our positions mesh with "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies" and "As you do to the least among you, you do to me".
We stray so far from our Lord's teachings and our Holy Spirit led Church social doctrine principles that I wonder what is the point of American Catholicism- American Catholics have for the most part been absorbed by the liberal and conservative ideologies and political party partisans- so what's the point? Having really, really reverent Masses? I thought that that was supposed to be the starting point of our receiving abundant graces so that we can go out and renew the temporal order like good, salt of the earth Catholic laypersons- not an end in itself.
As for the Muslim question I'm still advocating that everyone read an actual bland historic account of the Middle East history from WWI on, the one by David Fromkin- A Peace to End all Peace. The popes slam colonialism and neo-colonialism, why are so many American Catholics afraid to address the real effects of such on the developing world? Since when are Catholics afraid to deal in their own personal and national guilt?
How can you condemn someone else for a rhetorical tactic which you just gave yourself leave to use?
Get off your high horse, censor.
PVO
"As though there is common agreement that this sort of evil lunacy is not only practical realism, but perfectly in accord with Catholic teaching."
Ever hear of "crackpot realism"? That's the kind that generates moral clarity while justifying all sorts of stupid attrocities.
mulopwepaul:
Ever hear of irony? According to you, I didn't say anything at all. So why are you upset?
I don't condemn the rhetorical tactic. I condemn what was said via the rhetorical tactic. Apparently it bothers you more that somebody made fun of your excuses than that somebody suggested that the mass murder of a billion people is on the table for discussion by Faithful Conservative Catholics and Real Americans.
Mark,
Can't read every comment. Have a job and a three-year-old, after all. Not to mention a beautiful Bride and a needy house.
Having said that, anyone that claims to be Catholic and entertains genocide is, imho:
A) a complete Foolable--a person who honestly believe he's faithful while carrying water for mouthfoaming secularists--of either political variety.
B) a seriously deluded Catholic in need of a more serious pastoral intervention than any lay blogger can provide.
C) a troll.
The remedies I would use
A) the loud laughter of satire from a genuine Fool--a person that has the audacity to take God seriously.
B)Prayer and fasting, along with a humble reccomendation that said person see a priest to get their heads screwed back on.
C) ignoring and/or banning.
My 2 cents.
Oh, and to the fine, upstanding Faithful man that would advocate the genicide of a billion people, I have two questions for you:
How would you like to account for that action or counsel when you face Jesus Christ?
Since when did mass murder become carrying his cross?
Two observations:
1) I grew up as one of five in an Irish catholic family so the concept of hyperbole is not unfamiliar to me. My parents and siblings expressed variously imaginative intentions to do me harm on nearly a daily basis. So I'm kind of surprised to see the "exterminate the brutes" fellow held up as some sort of fiend we're supposed to swoon over.
2) Does anyone seriously think that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD? He used them on many occasions, didn't he? And everyone but everyone said he had them. So the proposition (repeated ad nauseam by the left) that Cheney "lied" seems at best obtuse and at worst nakedly partisan.
I was another person who read the comment after Mark already gave it the smackdown. I didn't think I could add anything to what he said.
As for the "lie" bit, I have mentioned before that I tend to agree with Mark that some species of moral wrongdoing occurred was committed by members of the Bush administration in its decision to go to war, but I think that "lie" was not it. It has unnecessarily blunted the point Mark was trying to make.
I still think that it is more likely that one or more acts of imprudence were committed in the buildup to war. Mind you, I mean imprudence in a strong Thomistic sense, where it is a vice directly in opposition to a cardinal virtue, and one that is most proper to a ruler -- prudence. In other words, to say that Cheney didn't lie but he did commit an act of imprudence is pretty damning given that prudence is the preeminent moral quality needed for his position.
Mark --
I think the answer is pretty simple, and (perhaps because of undue modesty?) you've just missed it, though Rich Leonardi hasn't.
Your readers take you seriously. You're the reason they come here. They don't necessarily take all the commenters seriously, and they don't think they're worth refuting.
Look, if you called for the slaughter of millions of Muslims, I wouldn't rebut your argument, I'd just quit reading your blog. If someone else says it in your combox, well, life is too short to try to answer all the random people who think that way.
In short, your readers hold you to a higher standard. That's by no means a bad thing.
Mark,
that particular comment has more the sound of poorly-considered hyperbole than a suggestion.
But I do think it's extremely sad that so many Christians can't see that winning the war against Islamic terrorism (while Fascism may be technically the wrong term, at least it has the correct popular connotations associated), like all previous murderous ideologies, will require changing hearts, not political systems.
The only system so far proven to work in that regard is prayer. It worked for Poland in Communism.
Pray for the conversion of Muslims in the Middle East.
Ronny:
I can buy that analysis. Makes sense to me.
What has happened to "overcome evil with good"? There is an excellent article found at antiwar.com by Brendan O'Neill entitled "Today's 'Islamic Fascists' Were yesterday's Friends". He references a book I've heard about, but haven't read yet by Robert Dreyfuss the title is - Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam-
The premise is easy to prove- during the Cold War and during Israel's fight against the secularist, nationalist PLO movement- both the US and Israel and UK saw the communist/socialist/nationalist forces of the world as the supreme enemy- and they went about undermining all such movements and governments all around the world. The CIA orchestrated coups against nationalists like in Iran in 1953- nothing to do with Islam, all about oil control and geopolitics, and the list goes on and on- Britain even set up the precursors to Al-Queda, Hamas, etc.. in Egypt way back when- it was the Muslim Brotherhood and British Intelligence used it as a front from which it could internally attack the nationalism/socialism of Nasser and before that the first headquarters of the Brotherhood was built by the British Suez Canal Company with Britain's knowledge and tacit approval, to serve as a wedge against anti-colonial parties.
And Israel nurtured Hamas for years in order to disrupt the PLO- and what American can forget the funding and training and encouraging of a jihadist war against the Soviets in Afganistan- only to ignore the people's plight when that succeeded.
The fact is that due to our superpower status, there is little we haven't had our hands all over in terms of global movements which are heavily armed and dangerous. By choosing for the most part not to even attempt to overcome the Soviet empire by overcoming their evil with our good works- when looking at things from the perspective of small underdeveloped nations- we have set up a global system of extreme haves vs. have nots, both in terms of economic and political clout. Now, the super-patriots can deny this reality until they are blue in the face- but I challenge Catholics, who supposedly love the truth, and are called to the Christ-standard.
Are we in for another destructive global cycle of overcoming the evil we in no small measure helped to create, by being equally or greater in our evil, to use primarily military and population punitive means of achieving "victory" for our side?
Are we sure of our chosen strategy? Does in coincide with the pope's advice and counsel? Are we aligning our political priniciples with all of the social doctrine principles?
If not, then explain to me again exactly how this is a blog that claims to be representing a Catholic worldview with "faithful" Catholics weighing in on current events and the like?
Another who missed the comment, and even if I had been around, I could have easily missed it because I look at comboxes like letters to the editor. If I comment, I may later scan through to see if someone responded to mine specifically so that I can counter-reply, but I generally on make a cursory scan of the other comments.
Gee, Tim, keeping people worldwide out from under a globally ambitious totalitarian atheism willing to kill millions to advance its interests qualifies as a good work to me, all by itself.
Read Red Star Rogue. It explains the loss of a Soviet ballistic missile submarine in the 1960s. One of the missile rocket motors exploded, and sank the boat.
It exploded while the KGB team that had seized the boat from the regular crew were attempting to launch a missile at Hawaii in such a way that we would have suspected the Chinese.
Granted, when Brezhnev learned of this he was beside himself with rage. But even he was unable to get rid of the plot's sponsors, Suslov and Andropov.
By my logic you've said nothing to me above; by your logic you've grievously insulted me to score a rhetorical point.
So which is it? Do you owe me an apology or do you owe the bomb thrower in the original post one?
I'm studiously neutral on the degree of outrage we should have cultivated against the original poster, but I can see a logical inconsistency when it doesn't slap me in the face and doesn't insult me gratuitously.
PVO
You know, I'm no genius, but I think the problem is that, for all our bleating, we just don't see things from a Muslim point of view. We more or less try to see Islam from the best point of view that our own version of Western culture allows us to have.
Fact is, Islam was founded by a leader who was at once a military, religious, and political leader. Those dynamics have forever existed to varying degrees in the Islamic community. While there are some (perhaps many) Muslims who cringe at the extremists, and may even feel threatened by them, in almost every case they also don't see things from either a secular, or a Christian, Western viewpoint, nor do even the most Westernized Muslims want to. And I think that is the stuff that drives men mad...at least in the good old US of A.
That is why the most moderate Muslim leaders could sit on CNN and condemn the violent protests against the Danish cartoons on one hand, and then turn around and smack down the interviewer when she stated that we must respect the way "Muslims worship their God." The moderate Muslim response: “Hey buster, we don't worship ‘our’ God, we worship THE Creator God, Allah.” And that is why they insist that while the violent protests are wrong, they also expect even non-Muslim cultures to respect their most fundamental beliefs. Because their fundamental beliefs are the truth.
That is also why we are told Muslims don’t protest communally against things like 9/11 because that is not their style. And yet when something offends Islam, there are some of the same folks out there protesting. That is why when even the most heroic Muslims risk their necks to stop a psycho-terrorist from blowing up a bus load of singing orphans, they still have this bizarre tweak in something they may say that makes us stop and give pause. And that is rather constant throughout Islamic history. Muslim civilization never doubted that it was the Truth and that its Truth must be accepted. No matter how non-Muslims were treated, that Islam was the Truth was never negotiable.
This is especially pertinent if we are looking for that Muslim to come out and say, “Hey, we believe you’re OK, I’m OK, we’re OK, so let’s just get along. After all, this is just our version of what we believe to be true.” Even when they do, it’s like catching a glimpse out of your eye that when you turn and look it is gone, we are still sure that something has fallen short of our hopes for what Islam wants, even if we can’t put a finger on it.
So when we make a sweeping statement that suggests all Muslims are radical nuts, well that is obviously nuts itself. But then we get frustrated because in our search for those Muslims who are wanting to make Islam into a mirror of a Christian/Secular Western belief system, we always seem to fall short, no matter how moderate they may be. Because Islam is not just some strange Arabic version of Christianity or Western Secularism. It is something completely different. And coming to grips with that will be the best way to appreciate those Muslims who don’t endorse flying planes into skyscrapers: By realizing and acknowledging that at the end of the day, even the most moderate Muslim’s ultimate goals my very well not be the same as a Christian’s, no matter how moderate they may be. And in the end, they may even be contrary.
Mark!
The post on the word islamo-fascism, and this post at straining at gnats:
PREACH IT BROTHER!
We need your voice! Tell the truth, call a lie a lie and illegitimenti non carborundum!
Another thought for consideration, Mark:
Remember the curse of the Internet. It makes your impulsive, transitory comments permanent.
Somebody who in their right moral mind would never advocate genocide for a second can nonetheless lose their temper and express their rage at that moment in a form that has monstrous implications.
Remember how many people post-9/11 were saying "nuke Mecca"? At least some of them were probably Catholic, and most of them were ordinary decent folks who in other times and places would have been horrified by that idea. And once the initial horror and outrage passed, so did the calls for responding to atrocity in kind.
Isn't it entirely possible that "I do not advocate exterminating the brutes, yet" is clearly meant not as "but I'm rationally considering it as an option" and more as "but I'm so angry at them I might just start calling for that, ridiculous and immoral as I know it to be"?
These comboxes make it very easy to say something in the heat of the moment that, thanks to being written down and made permanent, takes on the appearance of consistent truth -- especially if you are then attacked and vilified for it as if it represented the fundamental platform of your beliefs, and better men than I have succumbed to the impulse to defend themselves in error rather than admit to that error.
I'll reiterate it again: The first rule of Catholic debate is to assume the best intentions of your co-debaters, and never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by circumstantial impulse, error, or ignorance.
(Oops. I just noticed: "reiterate it again" is like saying "memo from the Department of Redundancy Department". And me thought me writed good. Argh.)
Mark,
I don't think you're all that rhetorically sophisticated. I think you're serious. You're belligerent. And you're not Christian. You have a dominating personality and you want to win at all costs. No matter what someone says to you, if you disagree with it, rather than answer them with a measure of respect, you make snide remarks, question their intelligence, tell them they're ignorant, etc. No matter how much you think you know about Catholic Christianity, you don't know enough to realize that you don't have a modicum of charity or humility. That's your problem.
I don't think you're all that rhetorically sophisticated. I think you're serious. You're belligerent. And you're not Christian. You have a dominating personality and you want to win at all costs. No matter what someone says to you, if you disagree with it, rather than answer them with a measure of respect, you make snide remarks, question their intelligence, tell them they're ignorant, etc. No matter how much you think you know about Catholic Christianity, you don't know enough to realize that you don't have a modicum of charity or humility. That's your problem.
Please provide specific examples that establish this. Thanks.
Mark,
I've thought for some time that you should really shut down your comboxes. I visit this site to get your perspectives on whatever it is you're choosing to write about, and I rarely venture into the comboxes because I find them dominated by the same loud and persistent characters. Drop the comboxes; those who wish to congratulate or criticize can always email.
Mark, with all due respect, your original post is silly.
We come here to get a trained, highly respected, talented Catholic's view on things, and I read this post?
We all lead busy lives, and we're supposed to respond to one angry stupid post? And you're evidently sooooo disappointed in us?
I took your comments as sactimonious garbage. It's your blog, and you seem to selectively respond to whatever you please. You should allow your readers the same freedom.
Chirp, chirp, indeed.
Ed the Roman- We were right to confront the Soviet empire- but you won't take the 'ends justify the means' defense will you? If we can't condemn neo-colonialism, the Arms race, and the Arms trade- then how can we maintain any credibility as Catholics who claim a moral social doctrine that is a unified set of principles?
Hey Mark just read this post, complete with your reader's quote:
"Regarding the fabulous 'moderate muslim': to meet the defintion of moderate would constitute moslem heresy - like cafeteria Catholics. Those moderate mohammedans that exist are considered apostates by true believers.
I do not advocate exterminating all the brutes, yet."
First of all let me say I agree with you Mark 100% when you say:
" You know what. Stereotyping is a fact of life. Deal with it. I'm a Catholic and I get stereotyped every day. It does not lead me toward any urge to fly planes into buildings or bomb subways. Blair is dead right. The Muslim community has to stop whining and blaming everybody else for their pathologies and start policing their own."
And I agree with the very brave Moslem writer who a year or so ago wrote that his fellow Moslems must admit that while not all Muslims are terrorists, nearly all terrorists are Muslims.
That said, re said reader's remarks about moderate Muslims (not to mention the call for genocide): in 2002 I was with a touring company that performed in Alexandria & Cairo. The people we met, the people we interacted with, the audience members who came to see us, were all Moslem, and were gracious, kind, and in some instances (like the members of a student Egyptian-American friendship organization in Alexandria) proud Muslims and proud Egyptians. The students showed us around their favorite spots for snacks around Alexandria, and were delighted that (as a Catholic) I understood the value of fasting (we were there near the start of Ramadan.) They presented us with gifts, and said they would offer prayers for us and our families. Our manager on the road, the one who handled most of our groups interactions with the locals, was openly Jewish. He was likewise treated with courtesy.
Did I see things that disturbed me? Absolutely, primarily in the popular press, and on posters in parts of towns - with anti-Semitic and anti-Americanism evident. The stationing of armed guards at the local Coptic Churches and Synagogues also was needless to say ominous (and where were they when the Copts were attacked in their churches in Alexandria earlier this year, I can't help but wonder?? Were they not there? Or were they there and looked the other way?) But as far as the existence of devout, yet welcoming, non-violent Moslems, who are good, decent people, yes, they most certainly exist. I can personally vouch for that, and for the overwhelming kindness and hospitality of the individuals I met.
"Extirmination?"
God help us all.
Mark,
Please put teeth to your accusation of all those combox visitors advocating "death to a billion Muslims". List their names with supporting quotes.
Islam must be defeated - it may come down to a definitive battle. That is not the same as advocating the "death of a billion".
At times we talk as if Islam is (and wil be) a forever item of human history. What a hopeless take. I pray everyday that Isalm will deflate, fall back upon its violent contradictions and disappear. What liberty to a billion men and women.
So, Mark, but a bite to your accusation - if it has one.
I've been too busy with other matters to read blogs much lately, but as an earlier commenter said, "do not feed the trolls" is good advice. When I was new to blogs, I would read an outrageous and disgusting comment like that, lose my temper, waste time composing a heated response - and then find that the original comment had been deleted by the site owner. My comment would stand, but would make no sense to anyone else reading the thread, since it was a reply to a now non-existent comment.
Um, Saddam did have WMD:
http://michellemalkin.com/archiv...ives/
005420.htm
Umm.... isn't this MARK SHEA'S BLOG?
Wouldn't that fact be more than enough to explain why more people here are interested in commenting on the work of Mark Shea than on the comments of any random Joe who pops by and says something outrageous?
Gosh Shea, just when I thought you had a monster ego, you reveal that you think you are no more important than the thousands of nobodies who post here, despite the fact that your own name is featured in the URL. How humble of you! Keep it up.
I think the comboxes are a great place for debate. Don't shut them down.
That said, I think a big part of why this blog's so popular is that Mark is a good writer. He's got a journalistic, hyperbolic style that attracts controversy. It always raises my blood pressure when Mark writes "The Party of Torture" or some nonsense like that; but it does get me to keep reading, and it can spark a combox debate that can be enlightening and entertaining. When I hear Mark call the Iraq war "misbegotten" and "a total failure" I can't help thinking of this arrogant professional apologist from Seattle who's judging half the foreign policy experts in America. BUT...that's just my emotional reaction. Afterwards, if I tour the comboxes, I'll probably learn something from readers who are much smarter than I. I might even (rarely) find I was wrong about something.
Debate is important, folks. Nowadays I don't think there's enough of it. I think that's because we forget that it's all about the truth. It ain't personal. Go dust off your copy of Plato and read the debates of Socrates.
Finally: I know that there have been times in the past that I have been in the frame of mind to say something like "kill them all." But if I wrote that on a blog, I would want it to be delated, later, after I had come to my senses. I would be ashamed. All I really take offence at is when Mark acts all offended when he does the same thing (like calling Cheney a liar) and someone calls him on it.
I should also add this, since I've said so many bad things about Mark -- I really do think he's a great guy, and I agree with what he says about...say..90% of the time. On everything, really, except for the war on terror.
Commenting by HaloScan
