Revision to "An ideology of evil"

Awhile after posting my entry on the Catholic Church (my first entry), I had a discussion with my girlfriend about it. She sucessfully refuted some of the points that I made, and I felt compelled to revise the initial entry. So that the initial entry can serve as a comparison to what I now feel, I have decided to keep the first entry in its original form and write the two revisions I'd like to make here:

1. For me to say that the Catholic Church didn't think the Holocaust was a big deal at the time it was occuring is historically innacurate. They apparently recognized the horror of the situation, but maintained a policy of neutrality. Whether or not this was the best policy towards ending the Holocaust is debated among historians. I still think though, that a policy of neutrality during the Holocaust is probably indefensible, and I criticze countries such as Sweden that maintained this policy as much as I do the church.

2. The reason that the Pope calling gay marriage part of "an ideology of evil" did not receive much criticism was not necessarily the media's fear of criticizing the church. It may have had more to do with the fact the Pope is not a political figure (to most at least), and therefore his views on American political issues are not covered as much by the news media as the views of American politicians. Nevertheless, I still think that the Pope should have received more criticism for the statement since although he is not a political figure, he has significant influence on American politics via the Catholic Church's influence on American public opinion. Although, as my girlfriend brilliantly pointed out, even if the church causes people to think of gay marriage as evil, that has no bearing on the consitutionality of the issue and incidentally should not effect public policy. Of course, religious view points may very well effect public policy, even if they shouldn't.


Further criticisms and/or comments are very much welcomed.

Frusturated with the Left

Both rightists and leftists in the U.S. are guilty of deciding that they are a rightist or a leftist and then determining their views on issues from there, regardless of facts and changing circumstances. But it is those on the left who are guilty of this that I currently want to address.

I am immensely bothered by the fact that many on the left seem incapable of agreeing with anything George W. Bush believes or admitting that any policy of George W. Bush has had positive consequences. The current attitude of the left, especially the far left, towards the Iraq war is easily the largest of my concerns. There were good reasons for initially being against the war and there are very important reasons for being disturbed (to say the least) by the way the Bush administration has conducted the war. But in light of recent events, it seems simply irresponsible to me to not at least consider the possibility that the war may be worth it in the long run (if not the short run as well). . .
The first and most obvious point to be made is that a murderous dictator has been removed from power. While it is true that Iraqi citizens may still be being killed in large numbers, one can safely assume that this number will fall and remain at a level significantly lower than the number that were being killed under Saddam Hussein. Like many on the left, I am not particularly confident that a dictator will not again come to power. But I am very much confident that whoever comes to power will be worlds better than Saddam Hussein.
The second and related point to be made is that the recent elections were a remarkable success and demonstrated that the Iraqi people were not happy under Saddman Hussein.
Third, the Iraq war seems to be having a positive ripple effect over the rest of the region. Libya recently decided to give up their pursual of weapons of mass destruction. There is a movement in Lebanon to kick out the oppressive Syrian influence (although a more recent pro-Syrian demonstration calls into question how serious the country's citizens are about freedom). And just today, Muslim clerics in Spain issued a fatweh against Osama Bin Laden.
In the light of these events, the fact that so few on the left, especially the far left, are willing to say that the war was a good thing is startling to me. I also find it remarkable that the same people who defended John Kerry's "flip-flopping" (as they should have), feel compelled to remain so stubbornly consistent in their hatred of every Bush administration policy.

In the past, I considered my self rather committed to the left. I no longer am. It is not that my views have changed that much (although they have in some ways), it's that the views of leftists seem to have changed. On the domestic front, the ideals remain largely the same, and I largely continue to hold left-wing views on domestic issues. But on foreign policy, leftists seem to have made a shift from being Wilsonian internationalists committed to spreading freedom throughout the world, to pessimists who embrace a sort of isolationism. While I don't see myself becoming a right-winger any time soon, if leftists continue to facilitate that shift, you can count me out of their ranks.

Gun Rights for Terrorists

According to an article in today's New York Times, many terror suspects on federal watch lists are buying firearms legally in U.S. stores. The FBI claims that there's not much they can do about this without violating laws supported by the Bush administration concerning the privacy rights of gun owners. First of all, do I even have to point out the irony of the Bush administration being concerned with privacy rights? This is, of course, the administration of the Patriot Act. Secondly, for the Bush Administration to not be restricting the right of suspects on federal terror watch lists to obtain firearms seems to show a lack of concern for U.S. national security. Third, the second amendment has no relevance today . . .
I find it interesting that defenders of the second amendent almost always quote the part of the second amendment that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", but rarely, if ever, mention this clause in the context of the entire thing, which reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]. This first clause about a "well regulated militia" is absolutely crucial. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of our free state, or rather, we have a well regulated militia and it's called the U.S. Army. The founding fathers rightly wrote the second amendment to protect against the government becoming tyrannical. But if the government were to become tyrannical today, your Smith and Wesson, or even your Uzi, would be no match for their nukes. The wording of the second amendment makes it clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" only so long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. So if you still want to argue for strict gun owernship rights, fine, but don't fall back on the second amendment. Instead, rely on positive features of guns like the ability to kill sentient creatures.