This guy gets over 100 readers a day? It's amazing he even gets more than a handful. What does he think we should have done, sit idly by while Hitler ran over Europe? It's amazing how people become intellectually lazy because others sacrificed lives for them.

I'm not sure yet how to object to old Dana Blankehorn. To say that he is "morally bankrupt" based upon what he says in this article seems like missing the point. I mean, you can all call him names and lash out at him - but it might be more productive to try to understand where he differs from the rest of us in his thinking.

I mean - if you are a Christian you know that killing is evil. Most of you guys are Christian and so you know that the 10 Commandments says "thou shalt not kill." And war kills people - so by extension, war is evil... even if it saves lives, it still involves taking lives. And those who kill people in war are often haunted by it - they are haunted by the evil of killing other people - even in a good cause.

I guese where I'm confused by this article is that I'm not sure what he means by "adulthood." Does he mean an unwillingness to "do evil" even in a good cause? or Even when neccessary? His reasoning does not seem to allow for the concept of self preservation or neccessity. or am I missing something?

To me part of adulthood is the ability to make painful choices based upon the greater good. I don't know if this man defines it that way or not... he reasoning is hard to follow...

It seems like rather than being "morally bankrupt," he is morally hamstrung. His concept of morality does not alow for practicality.

This is often the case with idealists - both Left and Right

I'm not sure yet how to object to old Dana Blankehorn. To say that he is "morally bankrupt" based upon what he says in this article seems like missing the point. I mean, you can all call him names and lash out at him - but it might be more productive to try to understand where he differs from the rest of us in his thinking.

I mean - if you are a Christian you know that killing is evil. Most of you guys are Christian and so you know that the 10 Commandments says "thou shalt not kill." And war kills people - so by extension, war is evil... even if it saves lives, it still involves taking lives. And those who kill people in war are often haunted by it - they are haunted by the evil of killing other people - even in a good cause.

I guese where I'm confused by this article is that I'm not sure what he means by "adulthood." Does he mean an unwillingness to "do evil" even in a good cause? or Even when neccessary? His reasoning does not seem to allow for the concept of self preservation or neccessity. or am I missing something?

To me part of adulthood is the ability to make painful choices based upon the greater good. I don't know if this man defines it that way or not... he reasoning is hard to follow...

It seems like rather than being "morally bankrupt," he is morally hamstrung. His concept of morality does not alow for practicality.

This is often the case with idealists - both Left and Right

By that rationale there's no real difference between Hitler and Ghandi. Ghandi just didn't think that violence was a "necessity" to effect the change he wanted.

Bill didn't say that Blankenhorn was morally bankrupt, he pointed to his article as an example of moral bankruptcy. But to assert that neither Hitler nor Stalin were evil is just idiocy.

A. : Regarding the commandment you mention, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - that is a poor translation. The original text is properly translated "Thou shalt do no murder." Not all killing is murder. For example, if a burglar tries to kill your wife and you shoot him dead to protect your wife, you have KILLED him but you have NOT murdered him.

Murder is killing without justification.

The difference between our war and their war is that our hearts are pure, and theirs are filled with evil intent.

That's the lie they tell themselves.

To state this obvious truth is not to engage in "moral relativism," which is a verbal game meant to dismiss critics without actually dealing with the criticism.

But let's play anyway.

It was Bush Sr. who traded with Iran against the Contras. It was Rumsfeld who shook Saddam Hussein's hand. It was this administration's ideologues who were conned by Iranian intelligence and their agent Chalabi into an invasion of Iran's choice.

That, sir, is moral relativism. And I'm dead set against it.

Bill and Dana -

I'm friends with Bill and know he a good man - despite the fact that we have political differences. I'm a liberal and he is.... well you know...

Dana - I agree with a lot of what you have to say... I appreciate your ideas.

However, I'm confused by both of your arguments.

Bill - at what point does killing become murder? If I believe that you are packing a gun and plan to kill me and I shoot you, have I commited murder? Even if I search your body and find no gun? What would Mosaic law say about that? What would Jesus say?

Dana -

At what point is evil justified? Was it justified in the Civil War? in WWII in Korea?

At what point does the greater moral good justify violence?

Hey, look at the bright side. People like Dana will let your walk all over them. Someone can punch them, steal their wallet, beat up their children and they won't even so much as lift a finger. They won't even call the cops (because simply having someone ELSE do the violence is just as bad).

It's revealing to know that Dana thinks child rapists aren't evil. They are truly holy men who just happen to accidentally force sex upon small children. They don't have the actual capacity to control themselves, they're just a bag of chemicals that are doing whatever the chemical reactions cause them to do.

But, it's so funny Dana thinks Bush is bad, Bush Sr is bad, Rumsfeld is bad (notice, there are no DEMOCRATS in his list? Partisan ass? Probably!) yet Hitler was good.

The thing ass-clowns like Dana fail to understand is it was "evil-doers' who fought to give him a country where he could piss on their graves and still sell his tripe in a magazine.

If you really want to see Evil incarnate, Dana, look in the mirror.

Disguss amongst yourselves.

You're one "t" away from a Freudian slip.

As for "a.", you can come up with fringe arguments all day. Hey, what if you had a toy gun and Bill shot you? What if, what if, what if? You know, the vast majority of cases aren't like that. Your strawman arguments are weak at best.

Here's the question: what if a burglar *did* have a gun, *did* show it, and *did* threaten to murder Bill's wife? Would he then be justified in killing the burglar? The answer is yes, and thousands of years of human law, created by people who are smarter when they sleep than you are when you're awake, "a.", have upheld this principle.

Thanks Michael -

I thought perhaps we could have an intelligent conversation without insulting each other - but you want to get nasty and call me stupid. At what point did I get hostile with you?

Did you even read what I said? or did you just read the word "liberal" and decide to attack?

Best,

Thankfully, the Blankenhorn way of thinking didn't keep us from kicking Hitler's ass. That we killed even one noncombatant, by his way of thinking, makes us just as evil.

No mention is made, though, of the evil we'd have committed by continuing to sit on our collective hands.

At a meeting where Hitler was trying to bring the German Christian Church onboard, about 10% agreed with his perverted view and 10% vigorously opposed it. Were the 80% of fence sitters any less guilty than the 10% who agreed?

I thought his most interesting assertion was that people don't know they're evil.

The assertion that they don't know they're evil has some validity, in the immediate sense. Nobody EVER intentionally does something they believe, at that moment, to be wrong. They may intellectually acknowledge that OTHERS may consider it to be wrong, stupid, or even evil, but AT THE MOMENT OF DECISION AND ACTION, they believe they're doing the "right" thing.

There are many mechanisms for this to occur: insanity and rationalization are the two most common, with the latter leading the former by a LONG SHOT.

Incidentally, the latter is also what, when it is a matter of course, we term "moral bankruptcy"