Down yonder a reader writes:
Mr. Akin,
What is your position on the Iraq War? I know that the late Holy Father
as well as the current Holy Father were opposed to it. I just don’t
believe it qualifies as a just war. Where is your evidence that it
qualifies? Why do you think it’s a good idea for Catholics to support
it? Have you lost your mind?I wonder what you think of my website?
This comment was posted at 12:06 p.m., Pacific Time.
Then, at 12:44 p.m., the same commenter posted:
By the way, your position of same-sex "marriage" is good. However,
neoconservative foreign policy is not. I don’t see why just because
you’re an American you have to support immoral war policy.
Then, after someone pointed out that it’s rather rude to ask "Have you lost your mind?" before you at least know the answer to the prior question, the previous commenter posted at 1:21 p.m.:
Good idea. I retract the question "Have you lost your mind?" at least for now anyway.
Then, at 2:33 p.m. the commenter posts on his own blog that
I have been unable to get Jimmy Akin’s answer to the question I posed
to him: what qualifies the invasion of Iraq as a just war according to
the Catholic Doctrine? I will be honest: at the outset of the war, I
was a more or less passive supporter of it. However, now I oppose it
because I believe it does not meet the criteria for a just war as found
in Catholic teaching. Both the late Holy Father and the current Holy
Father were opposed to it. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger said before the
outset of the war, the pretext of a preemptive war cannot be found in
the Catechism. He also said that the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the
US was unjustified. Since the start of the war in 2003, all of the
original premises for going to war have been discredited: no weapons of
mass destruction were found, there is no evidence of a link with al
Quaeda, etc. The war has proved enormously costly both in civilian
casualties, lives of American soldiers lost, and an enormous amount of
money has been spent. More lives continue to be lost and more money
continues to be spent. In my opinion, the neoconservative idea that the
United States should force rogue nations to adopt Western-style
democracy at gunpoint is overly idealistic.
To all this I have to say: Kid! Cut back on the caffeine! ‘Kay?
I know that you may be part of the videogame generation (your blog profile says you’re a university student) and may perceive life as moving at breakneck speed, but it simply is not realistic to post a blog comment at 12:06 p.m. asking me a question and then two hours and twenty-seven minutes later be declaiming to the world that you have been "unable" to get my answer to the question.
I know that as a result of a variety of causes (the Internet among them), many folks have gotten so used to instant info gratification that they have the attention span of a ferret on cocaine, but really!
As I pointed out just the other day, I don’t write blog posts during the day (when I’m at work) but at night (when I’m not). If you write at 12:06 p.m., I’m likely to not even see your query until I get home. Much less am I going to drop everything to write a post responding to a tendentiously-phrased query about a subject like the Iraq War.
Further, again as I explained the other day, a lot of folks write with queries that, much as I’d like to, I simply can’t answer for time reasons. Why am I going to jump your query up to the head of the list, above everyone else’s, in order to answer it?
And that assumes that I’m even going to answer it.
As I explained just yesterday, I don’t generally comment on political issues. I’m quite happy to explain the Church’s just war teaching, and in fact I have done so on numerous occasions. But when it comes to applying those criteria to particular conflicts, who says that I have any obligation to tell people what to think about a particular war when even JPII and B16 have not (despite what you may have heard) chosen to make authoritative statements on the subject and bind the consciences of the faithful?
If I choose to express an opinion or not, that’s my choice, but I certainly have no obligation to commit to a running debate with you on the subject just because you stick a remark in my combox.
Further, if you’re asking for my position on the war, why are you then assuming that I’m in favor of it? If you already know the answer to your question, why are you asking it?
And, puh-lease, don’t go around contemptuously labeling as "neoconservative" whatever position I may or may not privately hold. Would you like someone slapping insulting labels on what they perceived to be your position–and before you have even said what your position is?
Also . . . what does any of this have to do with Canada? That was, you may recall, the subject of the post into which you stuck your comment. To the extent it had to do with countries in general (including the U.S.), it emphasized how little I tend to comment on political matters involving them. If you have an off-topic query to make, well . . . that’s why God created e-mail.
Then there is the "Have you lost your mind?" query. Despite your later attempt to retract it, you need to learn a swift life lesson that this ain’t how it works. Having uttered words in someone’s presence, you can’t just magically take them back (unless you have access to a time-travelling Delorean). You can try to mitigate the damage you did to your case with them by expression contrition for having been so insulting with what you said, but saying "Good idea. I retract the question ‘Have you lost your mind?’ at least for now anyway" ain’t the way to do that.
Then we have the further query
I wonder what you think of my website?
This can be taken in either a snarky or a non-snarky sense. If it’s taken in a snarky sense then one would expect that there might be something on your blog that I would disapprove of (e.g., like comments about the Iraq War), however a check of your blog reveals that at the time you posted your comment you had written a grand total of seven blog posts, none of which had anything to do with the Iraq War, making it seem unlikely that you intended the question in a snarky sense.
That leaves us with the non-snarky sense. This one is also hard to explain because anyone who is sincerely seeking feedback on their blogging efforts should know enough not provoke and then insult the very person from whom they are seeking feedback.
Nevertheless, here are a few pieces of constructive criticism:
1) Light grey text on black background is a bad color scheme. It’s hard for the eye to read and will discourage people from reading your blog. If you want to attract readers, reverse the contrast.
2) It seems that you are still in the process of determining the name for your blog. That’s understandable, though you should get a snappier name for your blog than "Blog." A few days ago it was apparently called "Your Mom," which–while confusing–was snappier than "Blog." I know that it’s hard coming up with snappy names for things sometimes. Perhaps you might hold a "Name this blog!" contest among your readers or at least have a brainstorming session with your friends.
3) In regard to readers and friends, you’ll attract and keep more of both if you approach people positively rather than provoking and insulting them. Seasoned bloggers won’t mind engaging in friendly debates with you, but you can’t simply presume their answers and then start flailing away at them. You have to give people a chance to answer–if they want to–and treat them with the same respect that you’d like. Make a pain of yourself and few will link to you.
4) Oh yeah, and hit your "Enter" key often. If paragraphs get too long, they get hard on the eyes. Make sure you get a blank space between graphs, too. Much easier on the eyes.
