Let’s Play Simon Says …
Written by Brian on August 28, 2007 – 9:20 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
To the students of Theo 001, Section 1021 (along with our regular readers):
Thanks for visiting GOP3.com based on the information sheet given to you this morning before you entered your classroom.
If you would like another copy of the “Best of” list of Simon Harak’s zanny quotes, compiled by myself and co-blogger Daniel Suhr, download this PDF document and print it out. Also, we encourage all of our regular readers to review some of Harak’s outrageous remarks.
Unfortunately, you’ve accidently selected a political activist by the name of Rev. Simon Harak, SJ instead of a real instructor to fulfil your requirement for Theology 001 at Marquette. As most of you are freshmen, we will briefly review Harak and his history.
Here at GOP3.com, we have been documenting (see here, here, and here) Harak’s arrival at Marquette University and also discussing his past. Over at Political Science Professor John McAdams’ Warrior blog, McAdams has also documented (see here, here, and here) Harak’s propaganda work.
Simon Harak, who fashions himself as a Catholic priest, is a faux-peace political activist with a long history of apologetics on behalf of some pretty violent people. Harak is most well-known for his work during the interim between the Iraq Wars through his group called “Voices in the Wilderness.”
His group, which I’ll call Voices for short, visited Iraq dozens of times (30 in the 1990’s according to one account) under the pretense of giving food and amenities with the propaganda line that the United Nations’ imposed sanctions were starving Iraqi children (etc) and that the United States needed to stop restricting the Hussein regime.
Unfortunately, the truth of the matter, which the United Nations was forced to admit after the “oil for food” scandal of 2005, was that UN officials had helped Saddam’s henchmen hoard millions in finance and food supplies. Harak, as one of the chief excusers for Saddam, has never recanted his old positions.
Also unfortunately, this has been only one of the many radical things Harak has worked for. Harak also claims that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was acceptable (but not the UN-sponsored liberation), that the uprising of Palestinians against “Israeli genocide” is legitimate, and that the United States is the source of all evil in the world, including to the point of deliberately slaughtering innocents in Iraq.
As your information sheet indicated, Harak has gone off on more than just the Middle East. Be it socialism and social justice, the basic tenents of Catholic Christian faith, or respecting the law, Harak has gone off the deep end. He will probably end up being his generation’s Dan Maguire at Marquette University — another old, banal crony who you as a student subsidize through your tuition dollars.
That’s pretty bad. But fortunately, you at least do not need to subsidize Harak with your own time. You still have the opportunity to switch out of Harak’s Theo 001 course and into another course. Call up the College of Arts and Sciences at 288-7059 and ask to get into another Theo 001 class — they can get you in, even if another class is full. Or change to another class required by the Core Curriculum.
I’m sorry that you have been inconvenienced by all of this. I wish Marquette respected human dignity to the point of not hiring an apologist for Saddam Hussein. Alas, there are many excellent Theo 001 and dozens of other concentrations professors who more than supply the counterbalance to the Haraks of Marquette (who has only been on campus since the Spring).
Lastly, on behalf of the conservative movement at Marquette University, welcome to Marquette and Milwaukee!
For more information, feel free to contact me at brian dot collar at marquette dot edu.
Last 5 posts by Brian- Our New Prick of a President - November 7th, 2008
- Vote Fraud Watch: St. Louis, Missouri? - November 4th, 2008
- Vote Fraud Watch: North Ave, Milwaukee - November 4th, 2008
- Vote Fraud Watch: Franklin - November 4th, 2008
- Vote Fraud Watch: Shorewood/WFB - November 4th, 2008
Posted in Brave New World |
August 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I haven’t read gop3 since I came down to Baton Rouge in June and this is the first thing I read. Unfortunate.
The gov’t quote doesn’t seem that far removed from the Dave Berry quote in the Phil department (which was wrongly taken down).
Saddam: evil bastard, but there is definitely merit in the argument that he could and did spin the US as evil because we were too busy embargoing Iraqi civilians into his arms. Whether they really liked him or not, more people liked him because he provided them with more than we did. (Whether it was our duty to or not is another question.)
Socialism? Really??: This isn’t the cold war anymore. We are allies with social democracies and welfare states.
Ethnic cleansing: this is definitely up for debate and I’m not going to defend either side. They both have rights, but they both have blood on their hands. That Nobel Prize is for someone else.
Jesus?: I get that the pope siad this about non-Catholics like you, Brian:
[Benedict's statement] restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
But I’d like to think that there is room in God’s love for people who just try to do right by others–maybe even embody Jesus’ teachings without being a direct follower (or maybe, just maybe, he’s not a God that we would be worshipping if he couldn’t damn us for eternity. You know, a bad god.).
I’d like to think that God is love. Not a jerk. Being a good person because you believe it’s right is still pretty good, even if you don’t call yourself a Christian. Or Catholic for Benedict.
This may be a cop-out, but I’m probably not going to read any responses to this comment because I think I’m going to take another long break from gop3.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
“Being a good person because you believe it’s right is still pretty good, even if you don’t call yourself a Christian. Or Catholic for Benedict.”
Bush thinks he is doing what is right and being a good person, do you therefore, defend him? I highly doubt it. Your logic is used by many who are defending someone controversial whom they passively support.
In addition, your theory about a God that would “damn us to eternity” being a “bad God” borders on complete moral relativism. If there are no consequences for using the free will God gave us to do wrong then what is the point in believing in God? Just believe in a rosy heaven that everyone goes to. God gave us the freedom to choose and with that comes the ability to choose evil and, ultimately, damn ourselves.
Brian is simply informing his fellow students, a task that is not easy to do in our so called “academic” environment. Although he is often extremely critical of Marquette University, he obviously is taking his own time to put this together and combat what he (and many) see as a serious shot to this university’s credibility.
Thank you Brian and good work.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:24 am
You sound like what my father would call “…a whiney punk”, alhough being a “punk” is probably a stretch for you.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:51 am
If professors were bound to only teach the subject matter of the class and not use the classroom to promote personal views it would be a moot point but that, unfortunately, is not the case. I wish I had access to the kind of information you provided those students before I had class with certain professors. You’re a good man Brian.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Harak is disappointing. While there is nothing wrong with Harak speaking out against the war in Iraq, or the plight of the Palestinians, someone in his theological and academic position should be more responsible with his statements.
U.N. sanctions did not cause the suffering of the Iraqi people, Saddam’s foolish invasions of Iraq and Kuwait began the crisis that destroyed his nation. The U.N. acted wisely and realized the potential harm of sanctions and offered Iraq the oil-for-food program; which Hussein initially declined. This program should have been enough to prevent Iraqi starvation, but Saddam looted the program at the expense of his people. I can’t blame Iraqis for blaming the U.S. for their suffering; they lived in a police that prevented them form accessing the truth. Harak lived in a free society and chose to ignore the truth.
As for Harak’s assertions in Israel, I recommend reading Dershowitz’ “A Case for Israel,†which debunks the many myths of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Harak’s pacifism is noble, his willful ignorance is foolish.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Too bad Logan couldn’t stay on here and defend his position of “Being good because you believe it’s right” in the face of the all questions of relativism and proportionalism. He could probably even quote McCormick pretty readily and would simply ignore the teachings of Aquinas, JPII and the rest of the Catholic Church. But then it’s always fashionable at the end of statements to throw in a snide comment, like “Or Catholic for Benedict.” Look at the Church’s teachings, and you will see that she says that other churches do not have the full means of salvation that are inherent in the Catholic Church. They have parts, but by no means do they have everything.
There are plenty of excellent Theology professors at Marquette that will promote teachings of the Church and weed out the riff-raff of the Maguires and Haraks. Stick to Barnes, Del Colle and Fr. Mueller and you won’t go wrong, nor will you be disappointed.
However, chances are you will end up with a professor at some point who does not exactly teach the same thing the Church teachings. In these instances, you have to understand why their classroom lessons are not correct, and where the Church really stands. Combat these teachings along with ridiculous “groups” that are tolerated on a Catholic University’s campus, and maybe we can return Marquette to a place of not only academic prestige, but also Catholic, true Catholic, prestige.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:16 am
By the by, the See itself has made statements supporting his position that there are multiple paths to G-d: for instance, the official position on Jews is that they have their own path to G-d independent of belief in Jesus…
August 30th, 2007 at 1:41 am
“In addition, your theory about a God that would “damn us to eternity†being a “bad God†borders on complete moral relativism. If there are no consequences for using the free will God gave us to do wrong then what is the point in believing in God? Just believe in a rosy heaven that everyone goes to. God gave us the freedom to choose and with that comes the ability to choose evil and, ultimately, damn ourselves.”
Excuse me?
I would say that the man who believes in G-d because he fears going to Hell is no true lover of G-d. A true lover is one who sacrifices, whereas a person who “loves” out of fear of punishment or to gain a reward is merely an opportunist. If a person is told that they will receive little or no punishment for breaking G-d’s law, but chooses to follow G-d’s law regardless, that person is the true believer and the true lover of G-d. That person sacrifices an easier, pleasure-seeking life for the sheer love of righteousness, seeking no great reward for their actions. The point of believing in G-d is to be spurred on to righteousness because it is right, Brandon, not in order to gain rewards or avoid punishment.
Furthermore, an eternal Hell is inherently unjust. Our lifetimes are finite, and thus our capacity for sin is finite. However, according to the doctrine of Hell finite sin merits eternal punishment–a wildly disproportional mockery of justice. Hell goes far beyond “an eye for an eye”; proportionally, it is closer to “the rape and murder of your entire family for an eye”. I cannot, will not believe that G-d is a unjust, vindictive hypocrite.
Not that you’ll listen to me, of course…according to you, I myself am destined for Hell. Which is another interesting point, since I find it laughable that a basically moral woman who has been active in synagogue all her life and is on a path to become a rabbi would be damned to Hell for rejecting G-d. I would love to hear that logic explained sometime.
Don’t mistake self-righteousness for righteousness, Brandon…despite what you appear to believe (based on your response to Logan about President Bush), there is a difference between doing the right thing and merely thinking that you are doing the right thing. My father’s clients almost all believed that they were doing the right thing, but that hardly means they were. Simon Harak believes that he is doing the right thing, but that doesn’t mean he is.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Hey Brian -
Did you get a chance to upload a scan of one of the fliers on the site? I didn’t see one linked anywhere.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
msquared -
In the third paragraph, I have a PDF version of the document. You may download it and print it off (or whatever) through that link. Let me know if it doesn’t work, and I may email it to you if you want.
Brian
August 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Brandon, Kat,
Here, briefly, is my problem with the theological quote from Harak. The Catholic Chuch, and Christianity generally, do recognize that God, in His infinite love for us, reaches out to every person on earth to respond to His love. Unfortunately, not every person on earth is in the position to hear the Gospel (and hence given the opportunity to participate more fully in His saving grace). In these instances, the measure of salvation may be a matter of how one responds to the spritual stirrings in his heart. But, those who are given the gift from evangelization, who do hear the message of Christ, are given the choice of responding positively - freely - to His love or also rejecting it.
Harak turns this on its face and states that one can be perfectly aware of the message of Christ and His message of eternal salvation, reject it completely, and still find God. Which, as with most of his and other liberals’ statements, is absurd and contradictory. If one is presented with the message of the Gospel, there is no way of rejecting and yet accepting (finding) the same given gift of salvation. This would be moral relativism, and Brandon alluded to. Too bad that we’re hearing it from a guy who claims to be a Catholic priest.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Kat-
1. I do not believe you are going to hell, that is a heck of a way to demonize conservatives or Christians though, bravo.
2. I never said I believed in God in order to be saved. I love Christ because he is the son of God and he has forgiven my sins. I merely stated that we have the god-given capacity to choose evil and ultimately, damn ourselves. You managed to twist this into a fear-driven faith, the very opposite of my personal belief in God.
3. Please further explain this concept of a finite time in hell(sounds kind of like purgatory). Is this a Jewish belief? How much time in hell does each sin incur? I am curious about this system and I have not heard of it in the past (please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area).
4. “Simon Harak believes that he is doing the right thing, but that doesn’t mean he is.” I concur, this is, in essence, exactly what I was saying in my comment but, you must have missed that when you were busy painting me as someone who believes you are going to hell.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts,
Brandon
August 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Got it. Thanks. Can’t believe I missed it.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
1. Brandon, I was not demonizing conservatives–I simply assumed you shared your father’s belief on that subject. My mistake, but a reasonable one.
2. I’m sorry if you took my comments as attacking Christian faith. I have no doubts as to the veracity of your faith, or that of my Christian friends (well, most of them, at least). You asserted an argument that without Hell, belief in G-d is meaningless; I provided the exact opposite argument to show that it could also be supported–and also to get across to you how thoroughly aggravating it is to be told one’s faith is pointless or worthless. (Probably not the best way to go about conveying that, I admit, but I’ve had that argument flung in my face by certain elements of Christianity for a good twenty years now, and my patience with it has long since died.)
3. No problem. In Jewish tradition, everyone gets to Heaven eventually, but first they must wait a certain period in Heaven’s antechamber. The more sins you committed during your lifetime, the longer you must wait–with the maximum “sentence” being twelve months. There is no torment beyond the waiting (except for remorse, obviously), and it’s really more of a purification period than a punishment. So, it is like Purgatory in many ways, and may well have been the inspiration for the Christian version, but is more focused on self-purification than punishment. I’m not surprised you hadn’t heard of this before…even many of the less observant Jews are unfamiliar with their religion’s beliefs regarding the afterlife.
4. I think you misunderstood Logan, then. He was stating his belief that people who do good in the world but are not Christian still are following G-d; you responded that people who think they are doing good may not be, a totally different issue.
Thanks for your comment, Brian. I understand where you are coming from now, and I actually agree with you that Harak is misrepresenting Catholicism…although as someone who has read and rejected the Gospels, I obviously disagree with that viewpoint.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
1. My father’s beliefs are the same as my own, you have mis characterized us both.
2. I in no way meant to say your faith, or anyone else’s is meaningless.
3. Interesting. I remain Lutheran in my beliefs on heaven and hell but interesting nonetheless.
4. I don’t think I misunderstood him but, I guess we’ll see if he comes back.
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“In addition, your theory about a God that would “damn us to eternity†being a “bad God†borders on complete moral relativism. If there are no consequences for using the free will God gave us to do wrong then what is the point in believing in God? Just believe in a rosy heaven that everyone goes to.”
Apparently my religion is morally relativistic and has no point…I know you didn’t intend your words to come off that way, but they very clearly do.
You know, I’m actually kind of glad we had this argument. It’s informative.
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“If there are no consequences ”
It is quite obvious, as you detailed, that there are consquences, if not as drastic or traditional as some views of hell, you still have consequences, as I stated.
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Just a quick note:
fashions himself as a Catholic priest
You either are or are not a Catholic priest. If he has been validly ordained, then he’s a priest forever regardless of what he says or does–even if he gets excommunicated or laicized.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“It is quite obvious, as you detailed, that there are consquences, if not as drastic or traditional as some views of hell, you still have consequences, as I stated.”
Hardly a universal belief in Judaism, though…merely one train of Jewish thought. I’d say the belief that everybody goes to the same afterlife, no waiting period required (a.k.a. no consequences) is probably more widespread within Judaism than the antechamber school of belief–and equally valid and defensible, hardly the “pointless” faith you described.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m rather revolted with this. I’m not quite sure how ANYONE could argue against a man who is pro-peace and pro-justice.
personally, I think you should go into to a couple of Harak’s class and listen to what he has to say (I mean, don’t fly into a sensationalist rage and hand out ridiculous propaganda). but, of course, giving someone like that a chance might be too beneath you.
I was fortunate enough to have Father Harak last year and it was a blessing. It’s unfortunate that you are brainwashing his new students into thinking they are about to be instructed by some “monster”. But I’m not too worried about you and your “conservative” blog and propaganda against the center for peace, as the universal truth of non-violence, justice, and peace will always resonate with human beings.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Thanks for your enlightening comments, Christina.
I find it rather revolting to work for a man who slaughtered at minimum half a million people. Frankly, anyone who claims to oppose violence as a means to an end would not favor Simon Harak. Thus, I find your and others claims as peaceniks rather dubious.
I also find it interesting that you think that an information sheet consisting solely of his choicest quotes is propaganda. I too consider it propaganda. I consider it propaganda for Harak to lie to the world about Saddam’s peaceful government. I consider it propaganda to lie about the U.S. military work in Iraq.
But again, you don’t oppose violence, you don’t support peace. These are mere slogans for you and like-minded people like Harak to advocate your own prideful grab at political power. And anyone who stands in the way - like the Kurds, Shi’a, Israelis, Persians, and Kuwaitis for Hussein and Harak - may be discarded at will.
Maybe one day, Christina, you will actually support justice for all of God’s creatures, even if they happen to be an enemy of an enemy of the United States, like the Kuwaitis. Until then, please don’t try to convince yourself or anyone else that you have any measure of disposition toward peace and non-violence.
PS - By the way, I love that you posted FROM the Jesuit Residence.