What Happens When Prayer Doesn't Work?

"To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well." -- Gospel of St. Luke 6:29

On Sept. 1, Pope Francis from St. Peter's Square in an address called "Angelus," said:

"War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected. ...

"With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons ... There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable! Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence ...

"I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people...

"What can we do to make peace in the world? As Pope John said, it pertains to each individual to establish new relationships in human society under the mastery and guidance of justice and love....

"To this end, brothers and sisters, I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria. ...

"Let us ask Mary to help us to respond to violence."

To try to end the civil war in Syria, Pope Francis has "exhorted the international community," invited for "dialogue and negotiations," called for the "establishment of new relationships," "proclaimed ... a day of fasting and prayer," and asked "Mary to help us."

So is anybody in Syria listening? Assad? Al-Nursa, al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood? And what happens to innocent men, women and children if Assad or the opposing side goes on shooting, bombing or attacking them with sarin gas? (Sarin produces death within one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose, by suffocation caused by lung muscle paralysis).

So what if the pope's exhortations, negotiations and prayers don't work?

In the years just before and during WWII, Adolf Hitler embarked upon a campaign of mass murder and extermination. Six million -- one million children, two million women and three million men -- of the nine million Jews who lived in Europe were murdered by Hitler and his S.S., most in Hitler's death camps.

In addition, the Nazis killed between 220,000 and 500,000 of the Romani People (Gypsies). Between two and three million Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi hands died by starvation, mistreatment or execution. About 345,000 Czechs died, and nearly 600,000 Yugoslavs. And as many as a 110,000 mentally ill or disabled were exterminated. Had Hitler won, it would have been even worse.

Heinrich Himmler's "General Plan East" was approved by Hitler in the summer of 1942. It called for exterminating, expelling, or enslaving most or all Slavs from their native lands so as to make "living space" for German settlers. The plan was to be carried out over a period of 20 to 30 years.

General Plan East was a plan to reduce indigenous populations in the defeated states: Poles by 85 percent; Belarusians by 75 percent; Ukrainians by 65 percent; Czechs by 50 percent. These reductions would be produced by "extermination through labor" or decimation through malnutrition, disease and controls on reproduction. The Soviet people, once the USSR was defeated, would suffer a similar fate.

Before WWII, Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, "negotiated" the destruction of the Czech state to appease Hitler and prevent WWII. Before and during WWII, countless millions prayed for peace. During the Holocaust, the Jews prayed that God would save them. God didn't stop the war, or prevent the Holocaust -- unless he acted through the Allied armies! Nothing short of destroying the German war machine stopped Hitler. Indeed, what happened in Hitler's concentration (extermination) camps led many to conclude that "God was Dead," or that if He existed at all, He was useless in the face of such evil, or even worse: He didn't care.

Winston Churchill's view differed from the Pope's.

"The Sermon on the Mount is the last word in Christian ethics. ... Still, it is not on these terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding the state. Their duty is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and war and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects.

"But ... if the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used.
"And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favorable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year, if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win ..."

The pope's call for prayer and fasting is noble. But if militant Islam has its way, there won't be a pope; and there won't be any Christianity. One only has to look at the Middle East over the last 1300 years to see how Christians have fared. At the time of Mohammed, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and all of North Africa were Christian. Today, the last Christian remnants in Egypt, Syria and other Muslim states are being exterminated.

Against a dictator willing to use sarin gas against children, pacifism affords no protection. It is one thing to be slapped on the cheek; it is another thing entirely to have your neighborhood turned into a gas chamber. When prayers of the blessed peacemakers aren't doing the job, a resort to force may be the only alternative short of martyrdom.

Posted Online:  Sept. 20, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

When Social Justice Degenerates into Injustice -- Theft?

When I was a young law student, our Natural Law professor at Notre Dame introduced us to the concept of social justice. He explained that "social justice is the duty of every society to provide for the basic needs of every citizen."

But his definition troubled me. I could not understand why society has a duty to provide for the basic needs of people capable of providing for themselves, and I asked, "was there a corresponding duty of the citizen to the society to provide for his own basic need to the extent he was able?"
He replied, "The citizen has no corresponding duty." I was appalled by this and remain so to this day.

I cannot understand how a person fully capable of providing for his own needs, in justice, can refuse to work and demand that his neighbor, who does work, should support him.

What follows is a partial transcript from an Aug. 9, 2013, Fox News Town Hall.

In it we meet a "social justice" recipient who sees no "injustice" in taking food stamps (a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP Card) paid for by Americans who work and pay taxes to support his opting not to work, while living as a beachbum. You can watch it yourself at youtube.com/watch?v=bP_izYhdehY.

Bret Baier: Food stamp enrollment has surged since 2008. Forty-seven million Americans are on the program now at a cost of $85 billion per year.

John Roberts: Meet Jason Greenslate, food stamp recipient.

Jason Greenslate: Another day in the life of Jason Greenslate, leading the rat life. ... I wake up, go down to the beach with my friends, hit on some chicks, and start drinking.

Roberts: ... (This) 29-year-old has chosen the life of a beach bum. ... He gets by with a little help from his friends, and you, the taxpayer.

Greenslate: (This is) My EBT SNAP Card ...

Roberts: How do you get a SNAP Card.

Greenslate: Just go out to the Human Resource Office, have your birth certificate and your Social Security Card. I don't have a pay check coming in, so I qualify ... They've got it now so that (you have to qualify) only once a year.

It wasn't always that easy. Back in 1996, if you were an able adult like Jason, with no family, there were limitations. You could get food stamps for only three months, every three years. The exception was, if you were working at least a 20-hour work week or participated in a work training program President Obama wiped away those restrictions when he signed his stimulus bill in 2009. And in 2010, Obama used his regulatory powers to extend the suspension of those "welfare to work requirements."

Roberts: So you fill out a form for a SNAP Card and they give you that for a year, no questions asked?

Greenslate: Yeah, you're good to go. Two hundred dollars per month. Two hundred dollars. It's free money. It's radical. Why not? ... It's my job to make sure everything's rolling smoothly -- the sun is up, the girls are out ...

Roberts then accompanied Greenslate to the Gourmet section of the local food mart.

Greenslate: We got achi, salmon, eel, yellowtail with rice and avocado, and they have lobster on special, and coconut water.
He paid with his SNAP Card.

Greenslate: Two hundred dollars a month ..." (Sliding card). ... All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars. ... Yeah. I usually get sushi, but I make it my own way. But they didn't have any good fish, so I just got the pre-made stuff.

Roberts then inquired why Greenslate didn't work.

Greenslate: That's not the direction I'm going right now.

Roberts: That's not something that appeals to you?

Greenslate: Not whatsoever.

It is a just thing to live on a pension that one has worked a lifetime to earn. It is an unjust thing to have the government tax -- steal from -- your neighbor who works so you can refuse to work and spend your life surfing. It is wrong to divert moneys that should go to the disabled to play Santa Claus and buy the votes of parasites unwilling to work.

Fifty years ago, I asked the right question.

Posted Online:  Sept. 14, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

If We Must Go to War, We Must Win It

"This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years." — Marshall Ferdinand Foch, commander-in-chief of Allied Armies, WWI, on the Treaty of Versailles.

"Even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued (by the Western democracies) even ten or fifteen years at a time." — Winston S. Churchill

It appears we are about to make war on Syria. Why? To reestablish President Obama's lost credibility? To punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his people?

There are only two valid reasons for going to war:

-- To guarantee that Assad's chemical weapons can never be used against us or our allies; and
-- To destroy Iran's principal ally, and to send a full warning to Iran that, if they don't immediately abandon the nuclear program so those weapons are never used against us or our allies, the same or worse will befall them.

If America should have learned any lesson in Asian wars since WWII, it is this: The enemy will fight until we get tired and go home -- if he is able.

These two goals require more than a proportional response; they require the will to win. Winning means you destroy the enemy to such an extent that he has no ability to continue the fight. It also requires doing whatever is necessary to ensure that victory doesn't become a five- or 20-year armistice. That will mean killing great numbers of civilians.

Aug. 21, 2012 President Obama, said, "We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a 'red line' for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemicals moving around or being utilized.

"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the area that that's a 'red line' for us. And that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."

Secretary of State John Kerry has told the world that that red line has been crossed, and the U. S. will make make "limited" war on Syria. But what is limited?

President Clinton in 1998 went after a "pharmaceutical plant" in Sudan, killing one, in response to attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 244, including 12 Americans. The reprisal told Osama bin Laden that America was not serious, and did nothing to deter him from the 9/11/01 attacks. Sending cruise missiles after an aspirin factory in Syria, may satisfy the president's need to prove his credibility, but it won't solve the Syrian chemical weapon problem, or the Iran nuclear problem.

If this is what President Obama has in mind, it will be meaningless and ineffective. President George W. Bush believed we could fight a limited war, topple Saddam Hussein and turn Iraq into a 21st century democracy. History proved him wrong. He believed we could crush the Taliban in Afghanistan and create a stable government. That hasn't happen either.

In the Middle East, the only way to win, is to obliterate the enemy in a short war of extermination. A short war because America doesn't have the stomach to fight limited war indefinitely. Mr. Obama's withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan prove Churchill was right.

But could a war of obliteration or extermination ever be justified without America first being subjected to a catastrophic attack which threatens its very existence?

I don't think so. Americans obliterate enemies only as a last resort — unless we become like our enemies.

Who are we going to hit with our cruise missiles? President Bashar Al-Assad and his inner-circle? The Syrian military? Hezbollah? Iran's Republican Guard "volunteers?" What if they survive the attack? What if they shoot back? What if Syria's Air Force attacks our naval units? What if Iran, in retaliation, closes the Strait of Hormuz? What if they attack Israel? What if Russia intervenes?

Before the President acts to punish Syria for crossing his "red line," these are grave questions that America must ask and answer. Our proportional response could turn into WWIII.

I am not willing to go to war to restore Mr. Obama's squandered credibility, or to keep Assad from killing his people. But if the American people (through their members of Congress) vote that war is necessary to guarantee destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, and/or to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, Congress should declare war.

But we must make war in a way that absolutely guarantees that Syrian chemicals and Iranian nukes can never be used against us or our allies. If you choose to use that quantum of force, you'd better be willing to kill as many Syrians or Iranians, military and civilian, as it takes to get the job done!

Only in that way can you make unmistakable to Iran and North Korea America is deadly serious.

Posted Online:  Sept. 03, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea