aeab38359d74488ba458…

I get the feeling that James dislikes religion in general..it does not have to be a problem in the military for him to have his own little..jihad against it if you will going…just my opinion though.

EnochCain on December 18, 2006 at 11:27 AM

You’d be wrong about that. I like religion, particularly my own, but in the military it is not appropriate by any stretch of the regulations for superiors to proselytize to their subordinates no matter to what religion they belong. People who disregard the rules concerning religion can be convinced to not follow other regulations and that can put me and everyone I work with at risk.

You may think that it’s no big deal, that this isn’t a life-threatening situation so it doesn’t really matter if the regulations concerning religion aren’t followed. But the rules are the rules, they’re all written for legitimate reasons, and they all matter. Patton said, “If you can’t get them to salute when they’re supposed to salute, and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how the hell are you going to get them to die for their country?”

I daresay that James understood your intent quite clearly. His point is that if someone with military authority over your life tries to force a religious opinion on you, it is much different and more egregious than bombardment with advertising. You can’t (easily) walk away from it, you certainly can’t ignore it, and you feel implicity threatened against any “wrong” response to it. I completely agree and sympathize with his points.

But I also know because I faced the opposite, anti-religious prejudice from superiors, that there is always recourse available, you simply need to have the courage to take it as high as it needs to go. If a local authority will not redress the grievance, moving up the chain of command, up to and including writing your Congressman, is open to any service member who feels they are being forced to work in a hostile environment caused by inappropriate pressure from a superior.

I’m just surprised you didn’t make a comparison to carnival hucksters…or would that be too close to the truth?

James on December 18, 2006 at 11:04 AM

These posts are not meant for everyone to understand, James. I am not suprised that someone did not pick up on the common thread. The general idea is that we live in a society that is constantly telling us what they want us to buy or sell. Sorry you did not get the gist of what I was stating.

You speak of proofs of one’s status before God.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us.

1 John 4:7-12

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:8

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:1-4

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Galatians 5:11-14
I highlight the word circumcision, because for my purposes substituting the word tongues is just as valid.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Galatians 5:22, 23

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 1:27

I strongly desire to quote 1 Corinthians 12 in its entirety, but will refrain. I recommend that chapter in particular to anyone that is uncertain whether tongues or lack thereof proves a person’s salvation. Some highlights:

For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.

1 Corinthians 12: 8-11

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1 Corinthians 12:28-31, 13:1

Charity in the above passage is translated from the greek agape, the word for pure, selfless, unconditional love. It has no romantic element, cannot be confused with brotherly, parental, or erotic love.

Soothsayer, I have read your posts here, many of them, on many subjects. I have a hard time identifying a shred of love in any of them. Venom, spite, hatred, rage, and bile in great measure, but no love. I ask you, is it more likely that people will be drawn to God by your words, or turned away?

Meanwhile, you walk on a used car lot and you are attacked,

My military superiors are not allowed to tell me to buy their car. I can buy their car, yes, but because of their priveleged position and the undue influence that can ensue they can’t use a salesman’s tactics to convince me to buy it.

you open up the Sunday paper and ads fall out,

Nor are they allowed to tell me to patronize their business…

every magazine you open has a mess of “order now and save money”,

…even for a discount.

every tv show every 10 min. has 3 min. of ads,

In the military, I can’t change the channel or turn off the TV to avoid listening to it.

every “Hot Air” has some babe in a t-shirt,

What, have you got something against hot babes? Besides, I would have to choose to click the link. Not so in the military.

every school is selling candy,

Schoolchildren are not in charge of my career. Plus, you will never see a commander bringing in his daughter’s Girl Scout cookie order form…it’s considered an unethical implication of pressure. (Yes, people bring in those forms all the time, but those people are never the ones in charge. And even then nobody is allowed to advocate a commercial enterprise outside of designated charities such as the Combined Federal Campaign.)

every politition wants him/her to vote for them,

Yeah, they do, don’t they? Want in one hand and…nevermind the rest.

your mail is full of credit card come-ons,

…which I can toss in the trash without opening it to read their message.

every paper is full of ads,

Not sure how this is supposed to be different from what’s in the Sunday paper at the beginning of your post.

every stadium is full of pitches,

In particular, those that are used for baseball.

your neighbor has a garage sell,

They don’t have me report to their garage so they can share all the wonders of the items for sale.

walk down the wrong (or right) street and you are propostioned by some babe.

There you go with the anti-babe stuff again. But thanks for making the point that illegal activities are just that…illegal.

go to a holiday party and sit next to a realtor or a portfolio manager–good bye peaceful night,

You go to parties with people like that?

are you watching a football game or ads with a game between…

So you’re admitting that this type of behavior distracts from the task at hand to the point where what you’re supposed to be doing becomes an afterthought. Nice to see you’re starting to realize the impact.

and this guy is worried about a few people talking to him about religion.

It is obvious that you have no idea how much control over your own life you give to these people when you join the military.

Wake-up, everyone is trying to sell what they have.

I’m just surprised you didn’t make a comparison to carnival hucksters…or would that be too close to the truth?

This guy, Weinstein is just a few Fruit Loops short of a full bowl.

Jack.

BTW Blood Diamond opens Dec. 8.

the mere existence of complaints about the situation on a blog is hardly a guarantee of a change in behavior of the offenders.

James on December 18, 2006 at 8:20 AM

I wouldn’t disagree with you. I’m not necessarily saying that “the problem doesn’t exist.” I am just saying that situation doesn’t quite qualify for the whole-sale adoption of a “the sky is falling” doomsday mentality. In other words, keep the problem in perspective. It certainly doesn’t deserve and is not worthy of the “as dangerous as Al-Qaeda” hyperbole.

Lawrence, Gregor did a fine job of pointing out how your statements about Catholics is categorically false. I can add nothing more than to request you read some books other than what’s found on the Evangelical Book of the Month Club. Try Lamb’s Supper. It’s a good read.

Soothsayer, this is not the first time we’ve tangled in a thread. You are certified nut case. If the bible says it, well then it cannot be disputed. Let’s look as something:

Deu 7:6 – For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Deu 26:15 – Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our forefathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.”

Deu 33:29 – Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you,
a people saved by the LORD ? He is your shield and helper
and your glorious sword. Your enemies will cower before you, and you will trample down their high places.

God’s chosen people are the Jews. The bible says so. Well Soothsayer, unless you’re a Jew, game over. You loose. That is unless you want to interpret God’s words seperate from his meaning?

Let me emphasize again that I hold no ill will towards Evangelicals or any other Christ based religion. I do hold ill will towards any individual who uses Christ’s name (not his message) as a club of hatred.

Some people should try to exercise a bit of tollerance. Tollerance is not acceptance. Tollerance is allowing someone to exercise their free will without condemning them to hell.

Tact would be usefull too.

Anyhow, this wildly popular thread is “much to do” about nothing. The very fact that 1) the soldiers are free to complain,

…on a blog…

2) the complaints are receiving plenty of publicity,

…on a blog…

3) the issue is being discussed here in full view of the whole world blogosphere is all SPLENDID evidence that the whole issue is overblown and that “the problem” is not nearly as serious and/or pervasive as Mikey would like us to believe.

Fixed. Ooh, I complained on a blog, the world is now safe! Kumbaya, kumbaya! I know we’re Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ and all, but the mere existence of complaints about the situation on a blog is hardly a guarantee of a change in behavior of the offenders.

But on topic. Of course indoctrination won’t make the military as bad as Al’Qaeda, but what it does is attempt to give our nation a militarily religious cause, based on a religion which may or may not be true, and that holds the potential for abuse. And the situation is just too good not to post this:

Arma Virumque
By Ambrose Bierce

“Ours is a Christian army”; so he said
A regiment of bangomen who led.
“And ours a Christian navy,” added he
Who sailed a thunder-junk upon the sea.
Better they know than men unwarlike do
What is an army, and a navy too.
Pray God there may be sent them by-and-by
The knowledge what a Christian is, and why.
For somewhat lamely the conception runs
Of a brass-buttoned Jesus firing guns.

Anyhow, this wildly popular thread is “much to do” about nothing. The very fact that 1) the soldiers are free to complain, 2) the complaints are receiving plenty of publicity, 3) the issue is being discussed here in full view of the whole world is all SPLENDID evidence that the whole issue is overblown and that “the problem” is not nearly as serious and/or pervasive as Mikey would like us to believe. As far as I know, no one has been blown-up by an IED, had a RPG fired at them, or been kidnapped and be-headed simply because they did not believe in the military’s “approved brand” of Christianity. Can the Muslims sects say the same thing? I challenge you all to name ANY church of ANY denomination (Catholic or Protestant) that does not have a SINGLE obnoxious, pushy individual sitting in their midst each and every Sunday (or Saturday). Know what I mean?

I have been pressured more on this thread on Hot Air to accept a religion than I ever was in my entire Air Force career. I might also point out that arrogant Christain Bible-beaters like Soothsayer pestered me more about their pinhead religion in civilian college than I ever saw at the Air Force Academy, which was nada. At civilian college, Bible-beaters would interrupt you while you were studying and talk about their jackass religion. They’d come out of nowhere and tell you that you were going to hell if you didn’t convert to their jerkoff religion. Once they asked to talk for a couple minutes at my dorm house meeting and hijacked it into a prayer meeting that went on for forty-five minutes. We finally stuck the guys head in the toilet and flushed it.

There was no religious pressure at the Air Force Academy, nothing like the human wave tactics of the Bible-beaters in a state school. There was no religious pressure in the operational Air Force. None.

If I can speak for most Americans, the arrogant, insufferable, Bible-beating jackasses like Soothsayer are repugnant. I’d sooner join the Wahhabis than Baptist jack-offs like him. I’m not impressed by an immoral religion like Christian fundamentalism that claims that it doesn’t matter how you act as long as you say the secret words that make you a Baptist. I’ve seen plenty of holier than thou jackasses like Soothsayer who pose as morally superior and then lie and cheat their way through life. In my eyes, you profess an inferior religion because you have no code of conduct that guides your behavior.

Soothsayer, yours is a head that desperately needs an old fashioned swirlie.

I always liked that one.

Now:

I said that criticism of views is not censorship. “Criticism” is not censorship, but that is not what my original comment was in response to.

Then:

2) Criticism does not equal censorship

Merovign on December 15, 2006 at 9:37 PM

It does exactly that when the criticism is for the crime of daring to write about a certain subject.

Okay, dude. I guess you’re right about one thing, I don’t know what you’re trying to say, because you’re now on both sides of the argument.

I have not ignored anything you said. I can only be interested in what you said, because that’s all I know about you.

But thanks for framing me dishonestly and then running away.

I doubt I’d ever get an answer, but why did you slice up my comment about “many others” to make it seem like I was talking about the THREAD so you could argue THAT, when I actually said:

You (and not only you) are trying to render the word “censorship” meaningless by defining it so broadly so as to include all criticism.

I am arguing against that attempt, and so are many, many others.

Following up on the expounding of the many varied definitions of the word, clearly referring to the larger confounding of the meaning of the word in general, not just on this thread.

Are you like that all the time or did you just take a liking to me?

The way you continuously deny the problem in the face of examples given to you is significantly more Ratheresque than Weinstein’s simple exaggeration.

That should have said …

This thread is “now” all your’s.

When the 1% includes a disproportional amount of those who are above thousands of troops in the various chains of command, then yes, it’s systematic corruption because they are the system.

James on December 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM

Exactly right James. Fortunately … it doesn’t. And those in the military would tell you that. But it doesn’t matter, right?

If it isn’t as widespread as Weinstein claims…so what? Shouldn’t the existence of ‘any’ of these instances indicate that there’s a big problem that needs fixing?

Hey! The Dan Rather approach.

So what if we made it up. We still stand behind the over-all story.

Nice.

I am arguing against that attempt, and so are many, many others.

Merovign

Who would all these “many, many others” be? You seem to be the only one arguing. Maybe all the other comments were censored and deleted by Allah?

I seriously doubt there’s “many, many others” in here who feel it’s proper to suggest that Allah should ignore news stories simply because they might offend some on this board.

And, don’t we already HAVE a word for “criticism?” Why do we need to lump that one in with the substantially harsher “censorship?”

Merovign

Once again, you’ve made up something I never said. I actually said the opposite. I said that criticism of views is not censorship. “Criticism” is not censorship, but that is not what my original comment was in response to. My argument was that stating that Allah should not be writing about a certain topic due to the fact it might offend someone … would be to support censorship. But you know this, and you’ve purposely ignored it, and you’re obviously not interested in what I really said.

I’m done with this argument. I’ll simply repost my earlier response and be done with it …

Okay. I guess you win. There’s never any censorship until some form of punishment has been levied. ROFL!

Sarcasm of course, just so I don’t get attacked by all who find that statement as absurd as I do.

This thread is not all your’s. Have fun. I’m censoring myself.

Is one asshole “systematic corruption?”

Is even 1% assholes “a big problem that needs fixing?”

If so, there isn’t a large organization in the world that isn’t corrupt, pretty much by definition.

I think that if there is a problem, it needs to be addressed/fixed. But to lambaste the entire widespread organization as “corrupt” over a couple of incidents, if anything, HURTS the cause of curing those incidents by distracting attention from the specific offenders and forcing the organization as a whole into a defensive posture.