Chris Friel's Argument

Chris was here not too long ago. He'll be back.

Blessings,
Ann

"Wesley" <Nope.DeleteThis@nospam.com,> wrote in message
news:10o2m5lddnvke7f@corp.supernews.com...
> If he isn't reading his old email address he may want some time away from
> the net. A google search shows someone in England that may be him but he
> may
> not like being tracked down. Hotmail accounts can get spamed half to death
> so you might try sending him a new message ever week or so and see if you
> get through someday.
>
>
>
> good luck
>
>
> lilychenglen wrote:
>> Dear Newsgroup,
>> I hope this is not too inappropriate, but I was searching through
>> various discussion groups on the question of pre-emptive strikes and I
>> was struck by the argument of someone called Chris Friel. I am a
>> Catholic, and it seems to me that the argument that he (or she)
>> presented was quite clear - though many posts get side-tracked a bit.
>> Now, it seems, Chris Friel has stopped contributing, and I can't get
>> through to him/her on the email address supplied.
>> I have tried to get to grips with what I think was his/her central
>> idea. Does anyone know what's happened to him/her?
>> LC
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Chris Friel's Argument 

This newsgroup was pretty dormant for a while. You might try Google Groups
for some of the phrases he used in his posts, in case he posted something
elsewhere. Or you might check if he crossposted and ask in those groups.


Mary
--------------




On 26 Oct 2004 23:16:32 -0700, lilychenglen wrote:

> Dear Newsgroup,
> I hope this is not too inappropriate, but I was searching through
> various discussion groups on the question of pre-emptive strikes and I
> was struck by the argument of someone called Chris Friel. I am a
> Catholic, and it seems to me that the argument that he (or she)
> presented was quite clear - though many posts get side-tracked a bit.
> Now, it seems, Chris Friel has stopped contributing, and I can't get
> through to him/her on the email address supplied.
> I have tried to get to grips with what I think was his/her central
> idea. Does anyone know what's happened to him/her?
> LC
 >> Stay informed about: Chris Friel's Argument 

You were quite right, Ann, I haven't completely gone away. The truth
is, I began to wonder just how appropriate my posts were, they did get
off topic. In fact, I have spent my time writing unsuccessfully to
various politicians, one letter I think I will post here. "My
argument" (which incidentally was triggered from a few lines written
by a Bishop I came across on the net somewhere) I think is quite
relevant. I saw it as an attempt to explain why the Church taught as
it did on pre-emptive strikes. Though we can't know, I think Lewis may
have approved, for he has wise things to say on the influence of our
fears. Generally, I don't think we make good decisions when we are
afraid: terrorists know that; they want us to make bad decisions; they
want to polarise. But, returning to my broken vow of silence, there is
also this. Somewhere, Lewis remarks on the sins of thoughts. For
someone in my position this is an ugly thing to be tempted with. For,
the worse things get, the more it seems jeremiahs like myself are
proved right. And the temptation may come to be glad that things were
as bad as one prophesied. I really didn't intend to say all this, but
now I've started I shall mention the war…In the first place, when I
started writing, I thought it possible that the war would be a
cakewalk. This I thought might lead to a complacent reliance of "wars
of choice". Eventually, I thought this would lead to disaster. I did
fear that Saddam might use wmds on Israel, and that this might lead to
nuclear escalation. I was wrong there, but I thought eventually some
catastrophe might emerge. The folly of trusting "intelligence" and
propaganda should be no surprise to readers of Lewis. Nor should the
vengeful abuses that took place. Perhaps many of you will not admit
that greed could have been a factor, but what is this but a
vindication of the Bible (James 4:1)? The pope never argued the way I
did. His concern focussed on the humanitarian cost of war. Today, I
note, Britain's top medical journal, The Lancet, published research
suggesting that 100,000 civilians may have died as a result of aerial
bombardments and poor planning. Most of these were women and children.
Are we surprised? Again, I don't think readers of Lewis should have
been. And I fear the Christian community are especially fearful now.
Why do we read Lewis if not to be wise before the event? Has the war
made us safer? I think the seeds of chronic resentments have been
sown, and the job of building bridges across civilisations, which in
my opinion, has been carried out by John Paul II has only been made
harder. From what we know of Lewis' children's stories, wouldn't he
agree?
Lewis was in some senses conservative, but I think of him as a
"paleo-con". Recall how he described "ethical" wars a step down not
up. How he warned against becoming insufferable. Recall his opposition
to the killing of innocents: he linked Hiroshima to Dachau. The only
reference to Clausewitz (who has been admired by some neo-cons) I
quoted from the mouth of Lord Feverstone. So, I really don't think
that he would be in sympathy with vast numbers of American Christians.
He would have distanced himself from the dualism of good and evil
nations: the axis of evil runs through the human heart. He never
succumbed to the "verminous" idea that might is right. Lewis is still
worth listening too. But the Pope, I am convinced, Is worth hearing
too: his constant message has been: Be Not Afraid.
You can certainly contact me Lily, my old hotmail elapsed
christopherseanfriel RemoveThis @hotmail.com
 >> Stay informed about: Chris Friel's Argument