Disclaimer: (I can only speak for myself so the "we's" that follow are problematic - I use them because I am far from the only one who holds most or all of the following opinions)

If you truly wish to understand what people on the other side of this debate believe, you will not find that understanding by listening to those who vilify us and our position.

Consider this:
It is a gross misrepresentation to say that we "felt so strongly that she must die." What we strongly feel is that the decision of how much medical care her body should recieve after she is gone was Her decision to make. Not mine, not yours, and not the government's.

We support Terri's right to decide her own fate, just as we assert our own right to decide what should happen to us, should a similar fate befall us.

The following address contains a comprehensive discussion of her story, which undoubtedly contains some information and perspectives that you haven't yet considered:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

For those who will not bother to look there, here is an excerpt:

"Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.
In a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained:

Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."

Further, it is simply not true that those of us who felt that Terri's wishes should be honored advocate a "culture of death". On the contrary, we consistently advocate for life:

We oppose capital punishment- not necessarily on the grounds that killing people isn't the best way to teach people not to kill people - but on the grounds that many who have been convicted of capital crimes have later been proven to be innocent.

We oppose war in general, and the Iraq war and subsequent occupation in particular. Becoming evil is not the way to defeat evil, no matter how tempting it may be, and how frustrating it may be to resist the urge to violence. Consider how we all feel about the people that died with the destruction of 2 buildings (and damage to a third) on 9-11. Now try to imagine how operation "shock and awe" and the levelling of Fallujah must feel to the Iraqis. Don't read the next sentence until you really take a moment to think about how they must feel. How must they feel about their 500,000 children who died over ten years of sanctions that prevented the rebuilding of sanitation and water infrastructure that the US purposely destroyed in the first Gulf War?

We support universal health care - many more than Terri Schiavo die every day in America because they do not have access to adequate medical care. Our government spends over a billion dollars every day to maintain the most massive, infernal killing industry ever imagined - spending more on the means to kill than the entire rest of the world spends- yet millions of Americans don't have access to adequate health care because "its too expensive."

My message to you, Justin, and those who agree with you, is to join us in truly promoting a "culture of life":

Let's cut down the amount of money that we spend on our killing industry (Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex") to levels equivalent to what other nations spend on theirs.

Let's use the money we save to guarantee health care, living wages, and retirement benefits for all Americans.

Shall we invite other nations to maintain military bases on our soil? No? Then lets not base our troops in other nations - they don't like it any more than we would. Lets use that money to send out doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers and engineers instead of soldiers to other countries; lets send vaccines instead of tanks. The goodwill that would be generated towards us will do more to make us safe than all the overwhelming force that our present culture of death is relying on. Stealth fighters didn't protect us from boxcutters on September 11th - winning the hearts and minds of Osama's next generation of recruits is the only thing that will truly protect us.

What about the Osama bin Ladins and Saddam Husseins of the world? I've got an idea: lets stop giving or selling them guns.

The US found the craziest fanatic Muslims it could find and gave them advanced training and weapons to fight the Russians in Afghanistan 20 years ago. What was the result? Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

When Saddam was rising to power and when he gassed his own people, he was recieving support from the US.

Let's stop arming tomorrow's Saddams and Osamas. Let's stop supporting "our bastards" - FDR's description of Somoza in Nicaragua.

I respectfully invite you to join me in truly promoting a culture of life.

Look, reality based, you've given a long list of various issues, each of which would require a (likely irresolvable) discussion. Perhaps the basic concept with which I find fault is your belief that the only barrier to utopia is our reluctance (fear, whatever) to devote resources to the right things.

I will say, however, that I'm simply stunned that anybody is still making this point:

How must they feel about their 500,000 children who died over ten years of sanctions that prevented the rebuilding of sanitation and water infrastructure that the US purposely destroyed in the first Gulf War?

reality_based: winning the hearts and minds of Osama's next generation of recruits is the only thing that will truly protect us.

Good luck to you in winning over the next generation of potential terrorists. I wish I shared your optimism that winning their hearts and minds was even possible. Look at the behavior of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies -- how can you not conclude that they are completely insane and beyond all hope of convincing or reasoning with?

And no, the Bush solution won't work either. If we believe the President's inaugural address, then establishment of democratic civil society throughout the world will be the end of the terrorist threat. But does this really match up with reality? Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and Aum Shinrikyo (who attacked the Tokyo subway system with nerve gas) all originated in democratic, wealthy societies. Osama came from a wealthy family too, so the argument that terrorist == poor oppressed person living under tyrrany really doesn't make sense.

So today's dose of doom and gloom is ... there will be fanatics who want to kill thousands or even millions of people no matter how much foreign aid we send, or how many dictators we topple. Any better ideas on how to stop them from destroying civilization?

Reality Based,
That sounds more like the Culture of the Isolationist Nanny-State than the Culture of Life. It sound as if you would have us all sucking at the state teat for life, dependent on the benevolence of the secularized and sanitized all-powerful bureaucracy, guided of course by the gavel heads spouting "Thou shalt have no Gods before the Law." A goverment of the law, for the law, by the law, and nothing but the law, facts be damned.

"Let's use the money we save to guarantee health care, living wages, and retirement benefits for all Americans."

It's too bad the "reality" that you are apparently based in has concepts of economics and human nature that contradict observations in this world.

Reality Based may not be based in reality with many of his arguments. And, as Justin says, he has raised too many issues to discuss in a single thread.

But let's take victory where we find it: He's trying to make his worldview fit into the phrase "culture of life." Maybe he really believes that it fits, or maybe he's just trying to mollify us; I can't read his mind. Either way, the simple act of framing the discussion in terms of life is a big step forward.

Tell me, RB, do you have a "culture of life" argument for SSM?

Five posts in opposition to mine..where to begin ? At the beginning, I suppose.

Justin:
You are correct in pointing out that I raised a list of issues, which would entail an equal list of discussions. Yet it seems to me that they are also all connected- that a true culture of life would need to address them all (and more, no doubt). As to whether the discussion(s) would be resolvable or not: in an absolute sense, I would agree that the most likely answer is "no". If all of these issues were resolvable, then once they were resolved we could dispense with the legislative branch of government; all that would be left would be the need to carry out our resolutions (executive branch) and to make sure that we are acting in accord with our resolutions (judicial branch). Despite the presumed irresolvibility, I think it is important that we discuss these (and other) issues, to make progress toward resolving them.

"...the basic concept with which I find fault is your belief that the only barrier to utopia is our reluctance (fear, whatever) to devote resources to the right things."

Utopia is by definition "nowhere", as in "its impossible to attain a perfect society" - which I agree with. As mentioned above, I do not believe that the impossibility of attaining perfection means that we should not strive to improve our society. I think that's something we would all agree on (except perhaps for nihilists), although we clearly differ on what and how to improve. I would not say that the only barrier to improvement is our reluctance and fear,etc. to devote resources to the right things, but I would say that it is a significant barrier.

"I'm simply stunned that anybody is still making this point:"

I can't respond to this without understanding which part of it you find stunning: do you believe its not true, that its irrelevant, or what?

Matt:

You make an excellent point by bringing up McVeigh, Koresh, and Aum Shinrikyo- no doubt this list could easily be extended.

" there will be fanatics who want to kill thousands or even millions of people no matter how much foreign aid we send, or how many dictators we topple. Any better ideas on how to stop them from destroying civilization?"

Again, you are no doubt correct that there will always be such fanatics (including some who call themselves "Christians") What I am talking about is limiting their pool of possible followers.

Think about it this way: if it was our goal to create more terrorists-more willing volunteers for the fanatics-how would we go about it? How could we make large numbers of people so incredibly angry and frustrated that they would be willing to turn themselves into bombs - that they felt there was no hope for ever attaining a decent life for themselves or their families, so the only thing they could do is to take us down with them?

I think many of our current policies would accomplish this goal quite well: massive bombing campaigns, collective punishment, torture, economic policies designed to keep the poor in poverty, etc. I advocate for policies and actions that would not accomplish this goal.

"...so the argument that terrorist == poor oppressed person living under tyrrany really doesn't make sense."

It is certainly true that not every poor oppressed person living under tyranny becomes a terrorist, and that not every terrorist started out as a poor oppressed etc.
It is also true that not every cigarette smoker dies of lung cancer - some live to very old ages.

These facts don't prove, however, that these conditions don't increase the likelihood of people becoming terrorists or dying of cancer.

Sorry, this one's out of order:
"...how can you not conclude that they are completely insane and beyond all hope of convincing or reasoning with?"

many of them are no doubt beyond reason and convincing - but there are many more who have not yet reached that point of no return, and our policies and actions (we are, after all, the most powerful and most influential nation that has ever existed - militarily, economically, culturally, etc.) can influence whether they continue down that path or turn back.

SMMT:
"That sounds more like the Culture of the Isolationist Nanny-State than the Culture of Life."

Perhaps you are so unimaginative that the only way you can think of for the US to interact with the rest of the world is through threats, intimidation, and military intervention. There are other ways to interact, and therefore to not be isolationist.

Isolationism would be ignoring the rest of the world and hoping that it will just go away. That is not what I am talking about - I am talking about (1) spending less money than we currently spend on other countries. (2) Using the money that we DO spend on other countries on things that are helpful to them: doctors, nurses, hospitals, medicine, infrastructure for food, water, shelter, and education - not on guns, bombs, etc. which are tools of destruction and of death, not life.

"It sound as if you would have us all sucking at the state teat for life, dependent on the benevolence of the secularized and sanitized all-powerful bureaucracy, "

It sounds like that to you because you make no attempt to comprehend my position. (for anybody interested, smm and I had another "discussion" after Justin's previous post about "..a line that must not be crossed"). I do believe, along with most of the rest of the industrialized world, that providing health care services is a legitimate function of government- which, incidentally, would take that presumed burden off of employers, small and large, thus making them more competitive globally. While their are certainly "welfare cheats" of many varieties, the vast majority of misspent tax dollars goes to subsidize the wealthy (individuals and corporations), not the poor. If you cannot see that people who work very hard deserve to be paid on a level that allows them some minimal quality of life for themselves and their children, then I do not see how you can claim to promote a culture of life.

As to the secularized nature of the state, I suggest you look to the history of Christendom immediately prior to the founding of our republic. What you will find there is Catholics and Protestants killing each other over their state-supported religions. Ever hear of the hundred years' war? Or Northern Ireland? [This is NOT a slam on Christianity- my position has always been that war is a very un-Christ-like pursuit. Its just a nod to the wisdom of our founders in not establishing a state religion - of leaving the decisions about how (and if) to worship up to individual citizens. Not too long ago, this was a conservative position: minimal governmental interference in individual matters of conscience.]

"...guided of course by the gavel heads spouting "Thou shalt have no Gods before the Law." A goverment of the law, for the law, by the law, and nothing but the law, facts be damned."

Gosh, you sure don't like the law. What do you propose instead of the rule of law, anarchy?

Mike:

"Let's use the money we save to guarantee health care, living wages, and retirement benefits for all Americans." (quoting me)

"It's too bad the "reality" that you are apparently based in has concepts of economics and human nature that contradict observations in this world." (Mike's words)

How big is your world? Most of the rest of the industrialized world has state-funded health care - a far better situation than the 45 million (I believe that's the number) of Americans who have no health insurance find themselves in.

As to retirement benefits, look at the Great Depression (don't forget that its catalyst was a stock-market crash)- before social security in this country. Look at how well social security has worked for millions of Americans for the past 70 (or so) years. Look at what happened in England where they changed their retirement system along the lines that Bush is proposing- they had to pass a law to limit administrative charges to 20% (investment firms before that law were charging even higher rates) compared to the 2% administrative costs for our social security system. Look at what happened in Argentina when they abandoned their public retirement system.

As to the living wage issue, I was incorrect in lumping that in with my suggestion of how a culture of life would better spend tax dollars. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, there is something seriously wrong with an economic system that promotes such an unfair distribution of wealth- in which the elite few recieve astronomical compensation, while the vast numbers of WORKING poor can barely survive. Such a system does not fit with a true "culture of life". Read "Nickel and Dimed".

I have pointed out places to look for information supporting my position- I have not taken the time to research each one and provide you with the numbers - but they are there, if you take the time to look for them. I have not researched them for this post because, quite frankly, I'm spending far too much time here today. Its quick and easy to say "you're ideas suck"- it takes a lot more time and research to suggest solutions.

Ben:
First of all, thank you for your civil tone, and treating my post with respect. Thanks also to Justin for consistently speaking respectfully. I do not speak like Ted Rall, and I appreciate not being spoken to like Ann Coultier.

"But let's take victory where we find it: He's trying to make his worldview fit into the phrase "culture of life." Maybe he really believes that it fits, or maybe he's just trying to mollify us; I can't read his mind. "

While I believe that "culture of life" is mostly a catch-phrase that is meaningless on its own without a substantive position behind it, I do believe that it is an accurate description of what I am trying to promote.

I honestly don't know the definition of "mollify" - but based on the context, I seriously doubt that that is my intention.

The point about "reading minds" is an excellent point. It is why my posts are invariably so long: I try to carefully explain my points so that no one is required to read my mind. The one or two sentence replies that I often get are frustrating to me because I am not able to read others' minds. Look at the previous exchange between smmt and myself that I referred to above: trying to get him or her to state their position was like pulling teeth.

So. I have responded to every point made by the five of you - although I admit that my response to Mike was rather meager. I would like to read as many responses to what I've written as you all (and anybody else) would care to write. And I would appreciate something beyond saying I'm wrong- go ahead and say that, but then proceed to tell me what you think is right. You may be relieved or disappointed to know that I can't keep this up for long; I do have a life to attend to away from my keyboard. I would, however, encourage you to read directly what the "other side" has to say for themselves, not to rely on Fox News or others telling you about what we have to say. Here are some excellent sources:
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=43&CFID=7807383&CFTOKEN=37288228

http://www.thenation.com/

BTW: It is interesting that you consider the msm to be "liberal", based on the views of many of its employees- we ( I and many others like me) consider it to be very republican, based on the views of its owners. go figure

Reality Based said:

"Perhaps you are so unimaginative that the only way you can think of for the US to interact with the rest of the world is through threats, intimidation, and military intervention."

Or perhaps I am attentive enough to realize that the U.S. interacts with the rest of the world way more often than not without threats, intimidation, and military intervention.

You know, even the enlightened Europeans sell weapon systems to other nations. I'm sure they would be ultra happy if we weren't so competitive in that regard. Hey wait a minute! How do I know you aren't a European pretending to be an American citizen?

he also said:

"I do believe, along with most of the rest of the industrialized world, that providing health care services is a legitimate function of government.. (yada, yada, yada, clip!)"

Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with the European method of shooting society in the collective foot. That version of socialism is why they cannot compete economically with the U.S. But hey, if you want to turn the U.S. into an economic dead zone like the E.U. you've got the right to your pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, it conflicts with the pursuit of happiness of a great many others who enjoy economic freedom.

plus he said:

"What you will find there is Catholics and Protestants killing each other over their state-supported religions. (yada, yada, yada, clip!)Its just a nod to the wisdom of our founders in not establishing a state religion - of leaving the decisions about how (and if) to worship up to individual citizens."

Europe still hasn't moved away from state sponsored churches. And you want U.S. society to be modeled more after the European? I don't get it. You say this like the founding fathers left their religion and faith outside the door when they got together politically.

lastly he said:

"Gosh, you sure don't like the law. What do you propose instead of the rule of law, anarchy?"

LOL! I suppose that is how it would seem to someone who might happen to believe that the judicial branch of our government trumps justice, the legistlative/executive branches of our government, the constitution, and the life of one disabled person who cannot speak for herself. You think you believe in the Culture of Life, but your definition of Life is too narrow. I think if you want more credibility you had better reconsider that definition and broaden it.

SMMT:
Upon reading your post, I was angered and offended, as you no doubt intended, and immediately began thinking of clever come-backs and put-downs to respond with.

But I'm just not going to stoop to your level of discourse.

If you can state your points and questions without trying so hard to be witty, I will respond to them. If not, I won't.

Reality Base,
Thank you kindly for your 62 word non-response.

Okay, here's a question for everybody else. Have I been reading the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler too much?

reality-based: not every poor oppressed person living under tyranny becomes a terrorist, and that not every terrorist started out as a poor oppressed etc. It is also true that not every cigarette smoker dies of lung cancer - some live to very old ages.

Lung cancer has been correlated with cigarette smoking through controlled studies with statistically significant samples. Do you have such data to support your hypothesis that poverty and oppression cause terrorism?

Matt:
You wrote: "Lung cancer has been correlated with cigarette smoking through controlled studies with statistically significant samples. Do you have such data to support your hypothesis that poverty and oppression cause terrorism?"

I notice that you choose your words very carefully: you say that lung cancer has been scientifically CORRELATED to cigarette smoking, but you say that my hypothesis is that poverty and oppression CAUSE terrorism.

I also choose my words carefully; when you initially framed my argument as :
"...so the argument that terrorist == poor oppressed person living under tyrrany really doesn't make sense."

I attempted to clarify that that was a misrepresentation of my argument:

"It is certainly true that not every poor oppressed person living under tyranny becomes a terrorist, and that not every terrorist started out as a poor oppressed etc."

My point was that there is a relation between oppression/poverty and terrorism:

"These facts don't prove, however, that these conditions don't increase the likelihood of people becoming terrorists or dying of cancer."

Even after this explanation, you referred to my point as:

"...your hypothesis that poverty and oppression cause terrorism?"

Please be as careful with my words as you are with your own.

Now, to respond to your point:

The scientific method is certainly a useful way to find the truth or untruth of various hypotheses; nevertheless, it is not possible to apply it to every question. (Does God exist?)

So - No, I do not have data from controlled studies with statistically significant samples to support my hypothesis that poverty and oppression are correlated to terrorism. I would be very surprised to hear of controlled studies with statitiscally significant samples that correlate terrorism with Anything - I just don't think the topic lends itself to scientific study, partly because I can't imagine terrorists volunteering to participate in such studies. So as far as I know, my hypotheses hasn't been proven to be true, but it hasn't been proven to be untrue, either.

It's more based on my observations of myself and others - knowing how I have often felt frustrated and angry when those who hold power over me in some form or another do not deal with me fairly. Then I imagine how that anger and frustration would be multiplied if some really grave injustice had been done to me or my family, or if that injustice was something that I experienced every day, overshadowing every moment of my life. In an earlier post somewhere, I mentioned the example of Mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot": he was vigorously arguing against fighting the British until they shot his son in the back- then he went ballistic and just as enthusiastically faught against the British. I can relate to his reaction to seeing his family member killed, and I can see that his response is a natural human reaction.

For an example of how I believe that we (the US) are promoting terrorism right now, I recall the army itself saying that a high percentage of their detainees in Iraq are rounded up randomly - with no proof of their guilt, and certainly no trial with a vigorous legal defense. It is not hard for me to imagine that if I had done nothing against the army occupying my country, and that I had been arrested and tortured anyway, that if released I would become Mel Gibson, The Patriot, (to the best of my ability, anyway) fighting against the occupiers of my country. Also, if my family members were killed, or my house destroyed, or my friends, neighbors, or relatives subjected to these injustices - it would push me towards doing whatever was in my power to fight against those who were doing these things to me.

Is it that hard for you to imagine how would feel, if you were in similar circumstances? Think about things that make you angry, telemarketers, bureaucrats, me (maybe- I don't know), whatever - and compare the injustices and annoyances you have suffered to things like having your family members killed or tortured or your house destroyed- imagine how would your anger be multiplied.

So my linkage of poverty/oppression to terrorism is not based on scientific studies, nor do I have statistics to present to back up that linkage. I would doubt that it is possible to find a scientific study to confirm or disconfirm this linkage; it may, however, be possible to find statistics that are relevant.

The basis for my linkage is simply my understanding of human nature, based on my own experiences and my observations of other people, and my readings of history and current events. It seems to me that your arguments against my position are similarly unproven assertions based on your understanding of human nature, history, and current events - as near as I can tell, we're even in that respect.

reality-based: I notice that you choose your words very carefully: you say that lung cancer has been scientifically CORRELATED to cigarette smoking, but you say that my hypothesis is that poverty and oppression CAUSE terrorism.

Yes, both of those statements (about smoking and terrorism) are correct. How is that a misrepresentation?

I said: "Do you have such data to SUPPORT your hypothesis that poverty and oppression cause terrorism?"

Correlation supports a hypothesis of causation, which is just what I meant. I was not trying to play word games at all.

Later in your post, you argue for empathy with people who have been harmed by the war in Iraq. America has made many mistakes in executing the war, and that is a very bad thing, I agree. The Iraqi people who have been hurt by those mistakes deserve our sympathy and help.

However, the majority of the Iraqi people have not resorted to terrorism. The insurgency is led by Baathist goons and foreign mercenaries, not by the guy on the Iraqi street. Something else besides just frustration, grief and anger must be at work in the mind of a terrorist.

My own unscientific opinion -- extremist ideologies are a mind-altering drug, just like heroin or cocaine. Just as a heroin addict will kill others or himself in pursuit of a better high, the extremist is willing to kill in pursuit of the intoxicating sense of communion with his beliefs.

Ben said: "Tell me, RB, do you have a "culture of life" argument for SSM."

This reminds me of an exchange I had with Justin and Mike S, where they were unable to say, in opposition to Leviticus 20:13, that killing homosexuals (for homosexual behavior) cannot be moral.

I swear, Arturo, I sometimes think you're reading a different blog than I'm writing. It would be helpful if you would make the effort to actually find these threads in which you claim that I've done (or not done) something that I haven't (or have).

Matt, you wrote:
"Correlation supports a hypothesis of causation, which is just what I meant. "

Basically, I was being careful not to argue for a 1 to 1 relationship, ie. "all poor oppressed people become terrorists" or "all terrorists were once poor and oppressed". Correlation does support causation, but doesn't absolutely prove it. I was being careful not to assert my opinion as proven fact.

"I was not trying to play word games at all."

I can accept that.

"America has made many mistakes in executing the war, and that is a very bad thing, I agree. The Iraqi people who have been hurt by those mistakes deserve our sympathy and help."

I would add that there are a number of things we need to do in order to stop making more mistakes and causing further suffering, including taking a very careful and comprehensive look at the mistakes we have made and how we could have avoided them.

"However, the majority of the Iraqi people have not resorted to terrorism."

I agree.

"The insurgency is led by Baathist goons and foreign mercenaries, not by the guy on the Iraqi street."

I don't accept this to be true, although I'm not convinced that it is false.

"Something else besides just frustration, grief and anger must be at work in the mind of a terrorist."

Perhaps. But unless you believe that some are born as terrorists, something caused them to become that way. My point is that frustration, grief, and anger are powerful forces that push people toward becoming terrorists - although other forces may well contribute to that change as well.

"My own unscientific opinion -- extremist ideologies are a mind-altering drug, just like heroin or cocaine. "

I agree. I would add that these extremist ideologies can be left or right wing, Moslem or Christian or Hindu, etc. and a nearly infinite variety beyond that.

"Just as a heroin addict will kill others or himself in pursuit of a better high"

Perhaps I am being too nit-picky here, but I doubt that a heroin junkie would do that - their goal is to sit in a corner and drool on themselves. Heroin junkies' reason for criminal behavior is almost always just to get enough money for another fix. Someone on crystal meth might well kill just for the "rush" of killing, however.

My basic point is that we should look at what influences people to follow these extremist ideologies that lead to terrorism; have our actions influenced people to become more likely to join the extremists, and what we can do to influence people not to join the ranks of the fanatics?

It seems to me that our "War on Terrorism" is an exercise in futility, because the way that we are pursuing it is creating more new terrorists than we are killing. It reminds me of the Viet Cong: short of extirminating the entire population of Viet Nam, it didn't matter how many Viet Cong we killed- there was always more of them, becuase every time we killed one, we created several more.

That is why I believe that a foreign policy that represents a culture of life is the most effective way to protect ourselves from terrorism.

A culture of death sends tools of death and destruction -bombs and guns and tanks- to other countries, and pushes people towards various extremist ideologies that promote terrorism; a culture of life would send doctors, nurses, and teachers instead. A culture of death destroys infrastructure that provides food, water, shelter, medicine, and education - a culture of life would help rebuild these infrastructures - and thereby influence people to shun extremist ideologies.

I just stumbled across this on web - it appears that my contention about injustice and oppression leading to terrorism is shared by the late Pope John Paul II. As smm said, I may not have any credibility - for all anyone knows I might even be a European - but the Pope certainly does.
His words:
Date: 2002-09-08

To Fight Terrorism, Go to Its Root Causes, Says John Paul II

Focuses on Injustice and Oppression

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, SEPT. 8, 2002 (Zenit.org).- As Sept. 11 approaches, John Paul II appealed to world leaders to combat terrorism by fighting its roots, especially injustice and oppression.

To respond to terrorism means "to undertake new and creative political, diplomatic and economic initiatives aimed at relieving the scandalous situations of gross injustice, oppression and marginalization which continue to oppress countless members of the human family," the Pope said Saturday.

"History, in fact, shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life," the Holy Father said, when receiving the letters of credence of Kathryn Frances Colvin, the new ambassador of Great Britain to the Vatican.

"This is not to say that the inequalities and abuses existing in the world excuse acts of terrorism," he added. "There can never, of course, be any justification for violence and disregard for human life."

John Paul II condemned all terrorism. "Ultimately, terrorism is built on contempt for human life," he said, echoing his Message for World Day of Peace 2002. "For this reason, not only does it commit intolerable crimes, but, because it resorts to terror as a political and military means, it is itself a true crime against humanity."

"However, the international community can no longer overlook the underlying causes that lead, young people especially, to despair of humanity, of life itself, and of the future, and to fall prey to the temptations of violence, hatred and desire for revenge at any cost," the Pope added. "

read the rest of his statement here:

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=24822

To respond to terrorism means "to undertake new and creative political, diplomatic and economic initiatives aimed at relieving the scandalous situations of gross injustice, oppression and marginalization which continue to oppress countless members of the human family," the Pope said Saturday.

Perhaps we actually agree. I suspect we'll see fewer Iraqi terrorists attacking the West now that Saddam Hussein is no longer holding that nation in a state of perpetual injustice and oppression.

Yep, it looks to me like the Pope was calling for the spread of democracy to me, not just the spread of remediatation of medical and/or sanitation needs. Justice means the strong protect the weak. When that protection is limited to food and water which can still be taken from the weak by their oppressors, then we haven't finished the job. Isn't that right Reality Based?

reality,

How big is your world? Most of the rest of the industrialized world has state-funded health care - a far better situation than the 45 million (I believe that's the number) of Americans who have no health insurance find themselves in.

Does the average Canadian or the average American have better access to health care, and who has the better quality of care that they do have access to? The point is that your guarantee requires tradeoffs - you cannot guarantee everyone healthcare/health insurance without rationing the care somewhere. Now, perhaps you think a one-payer system would be more conducive to the "culture of life" than the American system. But that requires some kind of argument, some basis in health outcomes, some analysis of costs & benefits, etc. You cannot just say, "why don't we have universal health insurance if we care so much about the culture of life?" because it begs the question: what does the culture of life entail, and how does universal health insurance help support it? For example, of that 45 million number, how many of those people are illegal immigrants? How many are young, healthy people who don't actually need it, aside from rare events? How many of those people will actually be treated if they show up at an emergency room?

Obviously we don't have time to deal with this complex issue here - my point is that it's pure fantasy on your part to think that your proposed suggestions support a culture of life (especially when you haven't defined what that is). I could have written similar objections to each of the points you made.

Here it is, Justin.

Arturo,

It looks to me as if I did say what you claim that I was unable to say. Mostly, though, I ignored your line of questioning because it lays a trap that doesn't apply to my approach to the Bible, and I suspected engaging the nuances thereof with you would be futile.

Justin:

No. You didn't say it. But if you are now saying that it's what you meant, repeat after me: "what the Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 is immoral."

Arturo,

I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. I've learned, in dealing with folks such as yourself, that one cannot cede only limited points, so I will not do it.

It is immoral to kill homosexuals. If you want more than that, you're going to have to wait until I've had the time to read, research, and pray about the Biblical context, and I should note that I'm on my own time table, here, not yours.

Actually Justin, given his statement at face value - "what the Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 is immoral" - I should think it would be fairly easy to state: What the Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 (i.e., If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman) is immoral.

That's probably not his intention, though. I suspect he really wants to be able to say that you told everybody that the Bible is wrong - for whatever reason there might be. He may not realize that Catholics have a tradition of acknowledging that there are inconsistencies in the Bible and that even though the Bible is understood to ultimately be true to the word of God, that is true in the sense that the Bible is inspired by God but that the poor imperfect vessels that he coerced into writing down his words naturally make mistakes. It also doesn't help that he appears to be taking it out of the context of Jesus' teachings.

So let me say this to Arturo:
Yes, Arturo, according to ancient Hebrew law, homosexuality was a capital offense which called for the execution of the perpetrator. Aren't you glad the law has since been repealed? That the law was repealed doesn't change the underlying truth that homosexual activity is immoral, just that it no longer merits the death penalty.