But what I meant by “starting somewhere” was in the process of judging people. You cannot, in my opinion, judge people’s behavior by beginning at the point their motives are insincere. Then what do what we say about those whose motives are sincere?

It’s like looking around a neighborhood for a person who might know directions — sometimes you have to ask the next person you come across.

I don’t think that pacifism is a “lofty” principle. Nor do I think it is a cynical manipulation.

If you believe in just war, you are duty bound to enlist, actually, in a war, should one occur. There are certainly circumstances which might keep you home (a family to support, competing your education or training, a loved one to care for), but your conscience in no way prevents you from entering the service.

And, as I said above, not serving in the military is not answering a greater call from God. Don’t Chaplains serve in the military, even in the Rangers and the Green Berets?

And, I don’t know why you “do not assume good intentions on the part of pacifists, or at least not sincerity,” but I can’t help that. When it comes to judging people’s motives, we have to start somewhere.

52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

I believe the sword-wielder was the impulsive Peter. He reacted instinctively to protect Jesus, but forgot all His teachings in the process. Sounds like a lot of us.

evil flourishes when good men refuse to take up arms to fight it.

Men–and women–may resist evil by other means. Arms aren’t the only way.

Thanks.

It certainly can be either or both, but let’s assume good intentions on the part of the believer in pacifism. It’s not up to the believer to determine what happens to the non – believer. This is not a zero – sum game. If, for example, there were a draft, and there were a “draft quota” of 50 males for a small town, and there were 50 males of draft age, but one was a Quaker, that would be a problem for the authorities, not for the Quaker.

And, if I were one of “the 49″, I certainly wouldn’t bank on the strength of a “Hey, why isn’t he going?” argument. I would expect the answer to be, “Don’t worry about why he isn’t, you are!”

Again, I rely on good intentions. If I were a Quaker, I would avoid a “stain on my soul” by avoiding direct military service. If I chose to be some other kind of conscientious objector, it would be important to me that I not kill, or not take a role in combat missions, for example, and that would satisfy my conscience. I don’t decide who goes to hell or heaven, but I am certain about the existence of a conscience (except, perhaps, in cases of severe mental illness or retardation — and God will judge those people). People who violate the dictates of their own consciences will suffer here on earth (temporal punishment) and in the afterlife (eternal punishment).

God will judge whether your decision to not participate in a war was facile or self – serving.

too easy for a pacifist to say  a pox on all your houses! and so avoid making the very difficult moral choice to use violence to enforce the principle of justice.

The not choosing violence isn’t the same as not making a decision. Some people consciously choose the path of nonviolence.

self-serving in that while a Friend may believe that he avoids some stain on his soul by refusing to engage combat, the poor wretch who goes in his place suffers morally.

I don’t know of any Quakers who believe either part of that. There is that of God in all men and women. We do what we can. Some Quakers have made the decision to join the armed forces in both combat and non-combat positions. Nobody thinks they suffer morally for that decision.

So, that s why I ask frameone to perform unnatural acts with himself.

I see.

If that’s your way of coping, so be it. What interests me is how you’re able to do this at the very same time that you’re scolding others for their incivility.

I’m not asking you to do anything about it, Frank. I just like to point these things out.

I had been reading right wing blogs for a while, and never did I see (back then) such outrageous behavior on right wing blogs, as there was on this one.

People were decidedly uncivil, and made no bones about the fact that they were going to continue to be be rude and crude, and, if I didn’t like it, I could leave. I vowed to stay away until November, when I assured everyone that I would return to gloat over Bush’s victory.

I returned, instead, in October or November, when the lefties here were sure that Bush had “stolen “Ohio”, and generally, crazed over the idea that Bush had bested them once again.

I paid heavily for their discontent. The rudeness and crudeness escalated; I retaliated. I finally reached a point where I grew as disgusted with myself as I was with all of them. And you. I left, but then returned again.

Four of the most disgusting creatures I have ever encountered are JadeGold, frameone, Semanticleo, and neoconsrloopy, in decending order of obnoxious dissembling and rude, crude and obnoxious behavior. I no longer even attempt any kind of discourse with frameone, and I engage in nearly no discourse with JadeGold. My contact with Semanticleo, if you have noticed, has become most rancorous. Neo seems to have departed for blogs unknown, or changed names.

So, that’s why I ask frameone to perform unnatural acts with himself.

Calling the Pope a corrupt defender of child molesters is one thing; calling him Cardinal Ratzo is another.

If I’ve followed your parallelisms correctly, you’re saying that the latter is worse than the former?

I was attempting, rather casually, I might add, to characterize people who make up names.

Very well. Now maybe we can take up the next task at hand: characterizing (rather casually, natch) people who instruct others to G-F-Y.