[mycroft]

Interesting. The biggest complaint about my particular Christian denomination is that "we're too political" - why don't we just keep to helping the poor and downtrodden, and leave the ruddering of the ship to the people not making their money from religion? Usually from those who really wish Alberta was a Red State, of course.

Of course, my denomination is about as far removed from Rev. Hagee and the rest as you can be and still be Protestant. And when helping the poor and disadvantaged, the "samaritans" of today and the other social justice issues, how can you not be political, when it's the laws of the country that are (part of) the cause of the problems?

I disagree with most of TV Christianity, strongly enough that the word "abhorrent" comes to mind. But separation of church and state doesn't mean "guys with collars on backwards don't get to talk about politics or to politicians"; and it would be a sad day for the world if it did.

[mycroft]

And, of course, as I've said before, fanaticism in almost all forms (okay, apart from my Iron Maiden fanaticism, but I don't use chains, just driving triplet-based bass, to convert anyone) is The Problem, be it fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist Islam, "My country right or wrong" Americans, or anything else (even RMS; free software fanatics can be the worst of the lot, and I agree with their ideals!)

Unthinking, slavish following of an ideal isn't OK, even if the ideal actually is Ideal. And when it involves untermenschen of any form (sorry Godwin), it is no longer Ideal. I'll leave it to others to decide how far along the path (to whatever) it takes before one gets to "those people are 'not people', and their ruin doesn't actually matter".

[Codo]

I really don't get it. So there are religious idiots like this Hague guy.
And there are some silly rednecks who follow him.

Okay, so we all agree that there are religious idiots.

But these guys have nothing to do with religion.

You just don't rate atheists on the behave of Mao, Stalin Hitler.

Don't rate muslims on the terrorists from 9/11.

So please don't rate christians on so stupid guys. In civiliszed countries the 99,5 % majority of christians is different.
And I guess that even in redneck counties there is a big majority who thinks different.

To the original threat: Any big organiszm with a strong hirachy tends to become less tolerant to others. This is normal and may be true for the members of the US Army as much as for the members of the chinese communist party.

[ASkolnick]

The separation of "church and state" is one of the strangest ones in the United States.

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.
2) On your money, it says "In God we trust". Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

So as much as we claim to separate the two, they clearly are still somewhat intertwined.

[matmat]

ASkolnick, on May 12 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

The separation of "church and state" is one of the strangest ones in the United States.

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.
2) On your money, it says "In God we trust". Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

So as much as we claim to separate the two, they clearly are still somewhat intertwined.

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

also, can't you request a different to text to swear on in court? (first edition of a suparman comic would be pretty neat).

[pclayton]

matmat, on May 12 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

ASkolnick, on May 12 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

The separation of "church and state" is one of the strangest ones in the United States.

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.
2) On your money, it says "In God we trust".  Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

So as much as we claim to separate the two, they clearly are still somewhat intertwined.

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

also, can't you request a different to text to swear on in court? (first edition of a suparman comic would be pretty neat).

Can I use Killing Defense?

(not a bad title if you are being sued )

[TimG]

matmat, on May 12 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on May 12 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

The separation of "church and state" is one of the strangest ones in the United States.

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.
2) On your money, it says "In God we trust".  Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

So as much as we claim to separate the two, they clearly are still somewhat intertwined.

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

also, can't you request a different to text to swear on in court? (first edition of a suparman comic would be pretty neat).

I'm pretty sure you can opt for a non-bible pledge for truth telling.

Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence read "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal..." Franklin changed "sacred and undeniable" to "self-evident".

The Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Baptist minister (and Socialist) in the late 1800s, was originally "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." "Under God" was not added until the 1950s.

[kenberg]

As to testifying, I imagine the point is to establish that you can be tried for perjury if you testify falsely. I trust reasonable accommodations are made, but speaking for myself, I wouldn't ask for them. I just take it as a way of saying I won't lie. The Bible is traditional here. It's fine.

I do find the insertion of "One Nation, Under God" into the pledge offensive. Children in schools are certainly the largest group who consistently recite this. It amounts to intrusion by the state into checking up on how children are being brought up religiously. None of their business, really. To quote Pink Floyd, Teacher, leave the kids alone.

Also, at least in some areas, it has an unintended side effect. A couple of years back, when my granddaughter was in middle school, I asked her how this went in her school. They skip the pledge altogether she told me.

As to the "In God We Trust" on coins, I worry more about the falling value of those coins.

As to the bullying in the military, they might think this over. There are more than a few good men whose religious views might differ from the Sergeant's. Getting the word out that they aren't wanted may be a mistake.

[luke warm]

mycroft, on May 12 2008, 12:14 PM, said:

Interesting.  The biggest complaint about my particular Christian denomination is that "we're too political" - why don't we just keep to helping the poor and downtrodden, and leave the ruddering of the ship to the people not making their money from religion?  Usually from those who really wish Alberta was a Red State, of course.

my minority-held view is simple... if christians simply taught the gospel and treated others as Jesus taught (treat them as we'd want to be treated), christianity would spread even faster than it has - and imo for the right reasons...

Quote

Of course, my denomination is about as far removed from Rev. Hagee and the rest as you can be and still be Protestant.  And when helping the poor and disadvantaged, the "samaritans" of today and the other social justice issues, how can you not be political, when it's the laws of the country that are (part of) the cause of the problems?

it's just that when a preacher, and from him his church, starts delving into politics to the extent some do it brings into question exactly what that organization considers itself to be... it's my opinion that if a church wants to be politically involved, fine just do it - but don't then refuse to pay taxes because of the now non-existent separation of church and state

Quote

I disagree with most of TV Christianity, strongly enough that the word "abhorrent" comes to mind.  But separation of church and state doesn't mean "guys with collars on backwards don't get to talk about politics or to politicians"; and it would be a sad day for the world if it did.

i'm not in favor of muzzling them, i'm just saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too

Codo, on May 12 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

I really don't get it. So there are religious idiots like this Hague guy.
And there are some silly rednecks who follow him.

do you also think wright is a religious idiot? if so, what do you call those who follow him (since i doubt "rednecks" would qualify)?

[DrTodd13]

I originally stopped saying the pledge because I thought it was hypocritical to call yourself one nation under God but then to exclude Him from everything else government related. Today, I would refuse to say the pledge because it is patently ridiculous and only the brainwashed can say it with a straight face. Really? You're pledging allegiance to a flag...like if the flag suddenly grew a mouth and told you to kill all the <insert group of people we currently love to hate>, you would. It is just designed to get kids to practice blind obedience to the state. You want to see anger? Maybe it would be less these days I don't know but one girl I hardly knew wrote me this scathing letter in high school about how miserable of a person I was for not standing and saying the pledge. We're all for free speech but all of our "accept everyone" charade goes out the door when an American says "America is evil." I saw a guy on 60 Minutes last night say that the executives of Chiquita were morally culpable for the murderers committed by an anti-communist gang in Columbia they were extorted into paying protection money to. "If you give money to an organization, whether it is coerced or not, you are partly responsible for its crimes." Uh huh...I guess Mr.HighAndMighty doesn't realize he just condemned himself because he willing pays taxes to an organization that commits crimes across the globe.

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on May 12 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

I guess Mr.HighAndMighty doesn't realize he just condemned himself because he willing pays taxes to an organization that commits crimes across the globe.

I noticed that lawyer's statement too and wondered whether he feels personally responsible for everything done with his own tax money.

Nevertheless, our government supposedly acts in our behalf, and with our money, so we do bear a good deal of responsibility for what it does. It would be wise for us to put responsible adults in control of our government while we still can.

Years from now when China's military might far outweighs our own, we may regret acting on the idea that the strongest military has a right to attack preemptively a nation considered to have a dangerous government.

[DrTodd13]

That's a crock. Chiquita bears no moral responsibility for what the rebels did with the money they extorted. Likewise, we bear no moral responsibility for what the government does with the money it extorts from us. However, if you provide any non-coerced support, even moral support, to the government then I think you are partly responsible. To even say that the government has legitimate authority to act on our behalf is sufficient to be culpable.

[mike777]

DrTodd13, on May 12 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

That's a crock.  Chiquita bears no moral responsibility for what the rebels did with the money they extorted.  Likewise, we bear no moral responsibility for what the government does with the money it extorts from us.  However, if you provide any non-coerced support, even moral support, to the government then I think you are partly responsible.  To even say that the government has legitimate authority to act on our behalf is sufficient to be culpable.

I had great sympathy for Chiquita and how it has been singled out for its actions. Talk about the power of the government to crush whoever it chooses.

OTOH I have lobbied on the forums often that the American public and all peoples bear resp. for the actions of their government. This includes the USA, Japan, Germany, USSR, China and etc.......

As others have said you cannot give Moral Support and claim to be an innocent.

YOu cannot do nothing and claim to be an innocent. Of course this is easier said sitting at a computer but you need to decide is your family at risk and on the line or do you do nothin?

Just spare me the innocent routine.

As for China I have no doubt they will act in what is perceived is the best interest of China. To assume otherwise is naive. China will do what is best for China not because the USA is a polite country.

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on May 12 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

To even say that the government has legitimate authority to act on our behalf is sufficient to be culpable.

So you think you can avoid responsibility for what is done by your country merely by saying, "It wasn't me, I only happen to live here?"

Lots of us abhor the immoral and stupid actions of our government. My feeling is that we have let our countrymen down by permitting the dumbing down of the electorate to the extent that people with neither skills nor principles can actually gain the highest positions of political power.

As to your vision of a land with no legitimate government authority, that's a just pipe dream.

[barmar]

Codo, on May 12 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

I really don't get it. So there are religious idiots like this Hague guy.
And there are some silly rednecks who follow him.

Okay, so we all agree that there are religious idiots.

But these guys have nothing to do with religion.

You just don't rate atheists on the behave of Mao, Stalin Hitler.

Although there are counterexamples as you point out, religious idiots tend to be more successful at gaining followers. People who are looking for a movement to join are more inclined to latch on to religious movements.

[DrTodd13]

PassedOut, on May 12 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on May 12 2008, 06:47 PM, said:

To even say that the government has legitimate authority to act on our behalf is sufficient to be culpable.

So you think you can avoid responsibility for what is done by your country merely by saying, "It wasn't me, I only happen to live here?"

Lots of us abhor the immoral and stupid actions of our government. My feeling is that we have let our countrymen down by permitting the dumbing down of the electorate to the extent that people with neither skills nor principles can actually gain the highest positions of political power.

As to your vision of a land with no legitimate government authority, that's a just pipe dream.

Saying something doesn't make it true but in essence, if you did just happen to live somewhere and didn't encourage the system in any way then you aren't responsible for it. A lot of people trying to use this argument would be bogus because they are enabling the government of their free will in ways they don't understand. While it may be laudable to fight evil even at your own peril, it isn't immoral not to do so.

Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to be evil in the pursuit in eliminating evil. Going around deciding which activities should be disallowed because they dumb down the electorate is certainly evil. At least I'm advocating a system in which there is no systemic evil. You're advocating for the perpetuation of a system that has always led to evil.

[mikeh]

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.

I have almost no personal knowledge of the US military, altho I know a number of former military members in Canada. I have done a little reading on the subject.

I have doubts about the validity of the thought that the military attracts those with a propensity to violence... I don't doubt that there are some within the military who have that propensity, but I suspect the even the US military, struggling as it is with enlistment problems, tries to screen out the pathological... and many youg people with a true propensity towards violence will have committed and been convicted for criminal acts before they are eligible or think to enlist.

It seems to me that a more prevailing trait would be a willingness to accept a top-down authority structure, in which the few command the many and in which chain of command is sacrosanct... in which the individual not merely accepts being told what to do (and even what to think) but is more comfortable in such an environment than in a more anarchic society.

Certainly, those ex-military people I have known (and I want to stress that I find virtually all of them to be really decent, ethical people) are very conformist in their views on life and very much respecters of authority.

Given that religious belief (from my observations of it) also requires a belief in a 'higher power' and acceptance of irrational dogma as representing truth (allegorical or actual), it is perhaps no coincidence that religious fanaticism and intolerance of non-believers is rampant in the US military. The mindset that readily accepts military indoctrination would seem similar to that which accepts religious indoctrination.

I am NOT suggesting that all religious people are fanatics, nor that all military members are natural subordinates... merely suggesting that both religion and the military will preferentially attract the conformist rather than the non-conformist (btw, I am fully aware that many religious groups denounce the principles underlying even the existence of a military, but I see nothing inconsistent in that reality.. I am not equating a willingness to serve in the military with a belief in God.... I am speaking of propensities not inevitabilities)