Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Mahattan Declaration

Among the signers of the Manhattan Declaration Archbishop Caput and Archbishop Dolan are the ones best known to and most respected by me. I am, therefore, asked them to review my comments as to the noted and excellent document. However, I do note the absence of some essential facts and some avoidance of "politically incorrect" concepts, as included in the comments below.

A. In the declaration's preamble the authors skipped over one of the most critical events in US history as to slavery, which was the War Between The States (Misnamed "Civil War"). Most Southerners were NOT slave-holders OR fighting to preserve slavery; But, rather to preserve States Rights and the idea of "These United States" VS. today's "The United States". Many soldiers and politicians in the North did support the conflict "to preserve the union"; But, the gut-level passion was to eliminate slavery---Even if most (Including A. Lincoln) would never accept the possible equality of Blacks.
B. That conflict was, of course, the bloodiest ever fought by our nation. Without the use of such horrible force, slavery would have continued.
The earlier British campaign noted in the declaration, was enforced by the use-of-force, largely by the Royal Navy and did involve killing by military force and hanging of slavers---And was not limited to the UK, more generally off the coast of Africa. The preamble contained a falsehood or, worse yet, a half-truth about that campaign against slavery!)
C. This declaration should have mentioned (Perhaps in a foot note) that much of the general slavery and sexual slavery-and-trafficking is going on in East Africa AND is supported by the teachings of Islam as never abrogated.
D. The noted document notes a "...true God, the triune God of holiness and love,...".I put to you that the work "justice" should have been put into that descriptive sequence to balance the drift of the Churches away from the concept of "justice". Just as authority-and-duty should be in balance, justice and love-mercy-holiness should be in a proper equilibrium.
E. The term "...and act in defense..." was used. How "act"? Of course, such statements as this declaration is an "act in defense"; But, there are so very many ("Secularists" and most Muslims" for whom words contrary to their ideas, words and works are not effective and may (Especially for Muslims) be construed as an attack requiring a physical and violent response! (Please see Reference #4 below.)
I note that the wordy "defense of the unborn" has had little effect on the number of abortions (Especially the horror of late-term abortions) in the USA and beyond. I suggest that the "defense" of the unborn by the execution of George (The baby killer) Tiller may have done more to discourage the most horrid of abortions than all the words published by Bishops and others.
F. Some (eg The Sikhs; Please see note #7 below) are pacifists; But, hold it a sacred duty to protect the innocent with such force as is required and, where the law allows, wear swords or knives to remind them of that duty. We should do the same AND declare that not allowing the People ready access to the means to enforce their Natural Law right to defend themselves and the duty to defend others when the State refuses to do so.
G. Although I agree that all humans are, at conception, given equal dignity and worth. However, justice demands that we acknowledge that some (eg Genocidal tyrants and their underlings, abortionists and those who aid them, those who preach hate and take hateful acts) voluntary (By an exercise of "free will") give up the God-given dignity-and-worth of their creation and subject themselves to removal from any just society.
H. The quote "Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God" represents an inadequete presentation of this concept without: Remembering the acts of the Christ in whipping the money-changers from the Temple and his words about child abusers; Declaring that the basic teachings of Islam allow or encourage, and sometimes command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, perpetual war with "unbelievers" and the other horrors taught by the false prophet Mohammed; AND, the teachings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (A "Doctor of the Church"), in his De Laude Novae Militae, as to the proper and Christian use of deadly force (ie Striking blows for Christ) and the need to do so against Muslims.
I. One way to stand up to secularism is to legally fight each-and-every "Thomas Jefferson Case", which attempt to cancel out the "free speech" and "free exercise of religion" in all public places (On the basis of a private letter and in opposition to the intent of the Founders) on the basis of the Federal court case noted in #8 below.
J. In the "Religious Liberty" section, the authors last (A very important placement!) statement was: "But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's". Unfortunately, there are too many in the Churches who continue to attempt to take from Caesar (The People) what is due to him (Them)---To include the right to use capitol punishment AND to legislate who may enter a nation, live there and work there.
If the Churches wish for Jesus' level of "separation of church and state", they must be willing to actively support civil duty as well as mercy, rights and justice. They must also be willing to, in select cases where civil authorities do not protect the innocent, go beyond the law


1. The declaration itself.

2. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Islamophobia???

3. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Four Monotheistic Religions VS Islam

4. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Justifiable And Proper Killing

5. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: When Talk Fails

6. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: USCCB Errors On Faithful Citizenship

7. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Sikhs, Swords & Christians

8. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Atheism As Religon--PER Federal Courts



James Pawlak said...

Dear "Tryder",
Please make your comments in English as I have no other speech.


Anonymous said...

ok, hang on let me get this straight. Its ok to kill people after they are born, just not before. Have I got that right?

tyrannical elitist said...

good one!

James Pawlak said...

It is sometimes necessary to kill other adults to enforce the Natural Law right of self or communal defense and the duty to protect others from criminal attacks such as are encourage, if not commanded, by the Koran.