[Winstonm]

It's difficult to seperate a thread like this from a debate over religion, but I really don't think religion per se is the problem - the problem is intolerance.

The difficulty with a generally held belief that becomes a concentrated belief is that there is no room for tolerance - tolerance is simply understanding that whatever you believe to be true may be wrong, so others' views have equal weight to yours.

Applied to radical fundamental beliefs, tolerance becomes antipathy to the very belief itself - tolerance cannot be tolerated else the belief withers.

[barmar]

The reason this is a more serious problem in the military is that soldiers are essentially trapped. In civilian life, you don't have to put up with bullies, and you can choose who you associate with most of the time.

But if you're in the military, you give up most of this freedom. You live 24x7 with the people in your unit, and you're forced to deal with their prejudices. Individualism is generally suppressed -- much of boot camp is spent training people to be part of the team, subservient to the commanders. So it's hardly surprising that unit members will ostracize the ones who don't fit in.

Furthermore, since the US military is voluntary service, they tend to skew towards a particular personality, which emphasizes violence.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on May 9 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

Furthermore, since the US military is voluntary service, they tend to skew towards a particular personality, which emphasizes violence.

Probably a topic for another thread, but do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on May 9 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

It's difficult to seperate a thread like this from a debate over religion, but I really don't think religion per se is the problem - the problem is intolerance.

One nail, one head, consider it hit.

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on May 10 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

barmar, on May 9 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

Furthermore, since the US military is voluntary service, they tend to skew towards a particular personality, which emphasizes violence.

Probably a topic for another thread, but do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

This is the purpose of the exercise....to understand more about the issuer than the issue. It is clear that the distillation of his perception has resulted in an awareness of the situation. Based on the intent of the statement (ideally and hopefully to reveal as much as possible and engender a reasonable and valuable exchange) we learn more about each other as we learn about the subject matter in question.

We are man-made interpretation machines. Making use of this facility is one of our main higher functions. Quoting facts and numbers verbatim is okay but accept at face-value the offering and go with it. It has more importance than meets the eye.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on May 10 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

barmar, on May 9 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

Furthermore, since the US military is voluntary service, they tend to skew towards a particular personality, which emphasizes violence.

Probably a topic for another thread, but do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

No, it just seems intuitively very likely. Can you be a good soldier if you don't have violent tendencies?

Although I admit that many people have other reasons for joining the military than that they like to fight. Some do it because they don't see any better opportunities for their life. Others for patriotism.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on May 10 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

Can you be a good soldier if you don't have violent tendencies?

Yes. I"m tempted to say "of course".

I suppose it depends what you mean by "violent tendencies". Warfare is not violence for the sake of violence. It is controlled violence, a means toward an end. That end being, in essence, to make your enemy do things your way.

[kenberg]

Surely my own experience, although fifty years in the past, is still pretty common. I graduated high school in 1956. I was interested in mathematics (that may not be so common) and wanted to go to college but it was not clear how to pay for it. I was considering joining the Navy, but when I got a scholarship I went on to college.

My reason for considering the Navy was that it seemed like a reasonable way to spend a couple of years. I had no wish to kill anyone but I understood that was what you sometimes do if you are in the military. Without the scholarship I probably would have tried to work out the finances for college anyway, but I hadn't decided.

Of course reasons vary, but I don't recall knowing anyone who joined up so that he could point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. I think those folks usually go into the hit man business.

[Winstonm]

Here may be a window into the cause of this growing concern: From PBS: (emphasis added)

Quote

Dr. Hagee founded and is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church that has more than 18,000 members. He is also the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries, which he says boasts a television and radio audience of 99 million homes.

At the recent annual CUFI summit in Washington, D.C., prominent politicians were present to pledge support for this growing movement, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lieberman particularly sang Hagee's praise:

"He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him...like Moses he's become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

CUFI considers its defining issue to be the growing challenge of radical Islam, particularly as relates to the security of Israel and the United States. CUFI is incresingly concerned by Iran and its potential nuclear threats. Hagee often alludes to Nazi Germany in order to underline what he believes to be the gravity of the situation:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are reliving history. It is 1938 all over again," Hagee explains in a 2007 speech. "Iran is Germany. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, is talking about killing the Jews.

I think I have a solution - all of the radical fundamentalist Christians and radical fundamentalist Muslims would be invited to a Worldwide Smackdown held in Antartica, a no-rules fight to the finish, and the winning side would be given the honor of detonating a nuclear bomb on themselves for the glory of God or Allah, depending.

[Winstonm]

More of note from PBS, CUFI, and Hagee: (emphasis added.)

Quote

BILL MOYERS: There is no room for compromise here. Christians United for Israel opposes the Bush administration's roadmap for peace and urges American leaders to abandon it. The plan calls for a two-state solution in the region — if Palestinians lay down their arms and recognize Israel's right to exist, Israel will withdraw from certain disputed territories and move to help create an independent Palestine. For these believers the roadmap is inherently flawed because it is not biblically sound as Hagee often preaches to his congregation:

JOHN HAGEE: But the Palestinians have never owned the land. I want you to hear this very clearly. The Land of Israel was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their seed in an eternal covenant. It is recorded in the book of Genesis. The boundaries are there in the Bible. And that land belongs to the Jewish people today, tomorrow and forever because it is their covenant by the word of God.

Hagee is stating that political decisions should be based on the premise of biblical justifications - but isn't this the same concept they oppose - this blending of holy scripture as law of the land?

A bit more from the show: (emphasis added)

Quote

BILL MOYERS: But it's not Hagee's support of Israel that is beyond the mainstream — it's his bigotry towards different faiths. Here's what he thinks of Catholics:

PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: This is the anti-christ system; this is the apostate church this false cult system that was born in the Genesis ten that progressed through Israel and became veil worship God says the day is going to come when I'm going to cause this beast to devour this apostate system.

BILL MOYERS: And here's what John Hagee told NPR about Hurricane Katrina:

JOHN HAGEE: I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, that there was to be a homosexual parade on the Monday that the Katrina came, and the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

There is not doubt that those who follow John Hagee have the right to do so, believe as they wish, and lead their lives by this faith; however, when that type thinking becomes a political influence, it should be frightening enough to encourage any sound-minded, tolerant individual to politically oppose those ideas and values.

[Rossoneri]

I tend to agree with the view that the main problem is with the military and not the religion itself.

I happened to be in a somewhat similar, but less extreme situation myself, except that my Christian faith was targeted, though to be fair it wasn't really explicit targeting.

On a side note, it is sad to see "Christians" acting in such a way, but there are always such people around everywhere, such is the fact of human nature.

[matmat]

hopefully it will just be a short while before some male hooker comes out of the woodwork and points a finger at Hagee.

Personal faith can be a wonderful and uplifting thing, but organized religion, imo, is a sham.

-- edited for wording

[Winstonm]

matmat, on May 11 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

hopefully it will just be a short while before some male hooker comes out of the woodwork and points a finger at Hagee.

Personal faith can be a wonderful and uplifting thing, but organized religion, imo, is a sham.

I wouldn't go as far as calling all organized religions a sham, as there is some good done from some of these groups. After having lived so many years, though, I am seeing a parallel between the upswings and downswings of organized religion and the economic well-being of the middle and lower classes - it appears to me that psychologically speaking, the idea that "religion is the opium of the people" is correct.

It is of note to me that this resurgence of evangelical religions has occured during a time when in the U.S. the gap between rich and poor is the widest in history, and globalization has transformed the U.S. economy into a service-based economy, thus pressuring the middleclass by removing manufacturing jobs and replacing them with usually lower-paying service jobs.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on May 11 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

I wouldn't go as far as calling all organized religions a sham, as there is some good done from some of these groups.

sure. There is also some good done by charitable organizations that are not affiliated with religion. I really don't see why religious faith and GOOD faith have to be paired up...

[kenberg]

Hagee, who I had never heard of until reading of him on the Forum, is obviously a total nut job. Nut jobs often express themselves in religious terms. It does not follow that religious people are also nut jobs. It of course would help if the large majority of religious people who are not nuts would make their views on his rantings known.

The same applies to the Reverend Wright. Instead of saying that the Reverend's comments are divisive, it would be far more useful if Senator Obama would say something such as "It is a fact, not an opinion, that the US government did not develop the AIDS virus to wipe out the Black population, and if the Reverend says that they did he is either a lying demagogue or totally nuts". Of course Senator McCain should be making a similar announcement about the Reverend Hagee.

After which, Obama and MC Cain could hold a joint news conference and explain that they hope to devote the campaign to the discussion of real issues and they request that the nut jobs get off the stage.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I like the idea but you forget this is politics - and in politics you can't offend the voters.

From PBS again:

Quote

BILL MOYERS: ....Here is John McCain back in the year 2000, when he was running against George W. Bush:

JOHN MCCAIN: Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

BILL MOYERS: That denunciation of religious extremism cost McCain the bible belt eight years ago; the fundamentalist forces of Robertson and Falwell threw their support to Bush and McCain was finished.

McCain won't make that mistake again....now it's Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran....

While the Hagee legions dance and shout and sing harmony - which is odd - how can you sing harmony for a disharmonious action? I guess it's simply because God moves in mysterious ways....thou shalt not kill...love thy neighbor...but let's kill all those bastards.....yep, it's a mystery to me, all right.

[luke warm]

it's one thing to lend credence to a body of work by either hagee and wright, it's another to deny an understanding or knowledge of that body... anyone who sat in hagee's congregation for more than a month and who then denied knowing what he believed and taught is either a moron or a liar (imo)... the same for wright

it's my personal view that christian churches should preach the gospel of Christ and trust in his sovereignty when it comes to ordaining a government that allows or disallows that preaching to continue... i just don't think religious leaders should involve themselves in politics, but i know i'm in the minority

[Al_U_Card]

That's what separation of church and state is all about. Politicians have no morals but are concerned about longevity. The church has the moral high ground and is willing to sacrifice the future to gain heaven. A noxious cocktail if one ever existed.

Religion seems to come from the latin "concerning being bound" because they are willing to commit to a course of action that is fatalistic while the politicos are rather more realistic.

Christian soldier, muslim soldier and....wait for it....with the Dalai Lama waiting in the wings....buddhist soldier. Who better to take everyone by surprise...the ultimate religious politician.

We will never know what hit us.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 11 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

it's one thing to lend credence to a body of work by either hagee and wright, it's another to deny an understanding or knowledge of that body... anyone who sat in hagee's congregation for more than a month and who then denied knowing what he believed and taught is either a moron or a liar (imo)... the same for wright

it's my personal view that christian churches should preach the gospel of Christ and trust in his sovereignty when it comes to ordaining a government that allows or disallows that preaching to continue... i just don't think religious leaders should involve themselves in politics, but i know i'm in the minority

I have no objections to organized religion and recognize that: 1) they may be right, and 2) regardless, they have a right to those religious views.

But I am with Jimmy that when it comes to mixing relious fervor with political agenda, it is beyond of the scope of personal rights and into the realm of manipulation for agenda's sake.

Personally, I see little difference between Hagee's positions and those of a radical fundamentalist Muslin - and I find both dangerous.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Who better to take everyone by surprise...the ultimate religious politician.

But it takes a downtrodden and maleable proletariat to make such a leader plausible. The ultimate opium of the people.