The Rapture?

[mrdiscreet]

Dave Lindorff: The Air Force Coverup of that Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight

"It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck." -- Pentagon official

There is something deeply disturbing about the Air Force's official report on the Aug. 29-30 "bent spear" incident that saw six nuclear warheads get mounted on six Advanced Cruise Missiles and improperly removed from a nuclear weapons storage bunker at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, then get improperly loaded on a B-52, and then get improperly flown to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana -- a report that attributed the whole thing to a "mistake."

According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted the warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated for destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a launch pylon on the B-52's wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel spot the nukes, according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)

The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years of nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads in the U.S. stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transport or removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems -- automated alarms similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached without authorization.

While the Air Force report doesn't mention any of this, this means if weapons in a storage bunker are protected against unauthorized removal, someone -- and actually at least two people, since it's long been a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclear weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem -- had to deliberately and consciously disable those alarms.

Since the Air Force report does not explain how this hurdle to unauthorized removal of the six nukes could have been surmounted by "mistake," the report has to be considered a whitewash, or at best a coverup.

That leaves us speculating about what actually happened, and about who might have authorized the removal of those nukes from storage, and why the Defense Department would be covering up the true story. We know the loading of nuclear-armed missiles or bombs onto an American bomber has been barred since 1991, even for practice and training purposes. We know also the carrying of nuclear weapons by bombers flying over U.S. airspace has been banned for 40 years. So if the evidence suggests strongly that the removal of the nukes from the bunker was done intentionally and with some kind of authorization from higher authorities, then the loading of nukes onto the plane, and the flight of those nukes to Barksdale have to also be assumed to have been authorized.

The Air Force has not been forthcoming about the automated alarm protections on American nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny they even exist. But we can know they are in place for several reasons. Since writing about this incident in the current edition of American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/) ("The Mystery of Minot," Oct. 24, 2007) and in several online venues, I have been contacted by several active-duty and retired military people who have assured me that such electronic protections are in place.

And yet we're asked to believe some low-ranking ground crew personnel at Minot AFB simply walked out of a nuclear weapons bunker with six nuclear armed Advanced Cruise Missiles, not knowing what they were carrying, and labored for eight hours to mount those missiles and their launch pylon on the wing of a B-52 strategic bomber without ever noticing they were armed with nuclear weapons. We're asked to believe that none of those electronic alarms and motion sensors built into the system went off during that whole process.

When I mentioned the automated alarm and motion sensors to Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, a public affairs person at the Department of the Air Force, and asked her how the movement of the six nukes could have occurred without those alarms being disabled, she said, "It's an intriguing question, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

We need honest answers to some hard questions. Among them:

* Who disabled the alarm systems on those weapons and on the bunker itself?

* Who mounted six nuclear weapons on the noses of six cruise missiles and put those missiles onto a B-52 launch platform?

* Who authorized them to perform this operation?

* Who moved the armed weapons out of the bunker at Minot AFB and mounted them on the wing of a B-52 bound for Barksdale AFB? (Barksdale, it should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being flown to the Middle East Theater.)

* Were the six missiles flyable? Were they fueled up and ready to fire, or were they not fueled at the time of the Minot-Barksdale flight?

* Was there targeting information in the missile's guidance computers and if so, what were those targets?

* What happened to the three military whistleblowers who blew the whistle on this incident and reported it to a journalist at the Military Times newspaper?

* Why hasn't the Air Force or the FBI investigated the 6-8 untimely deaths including three alleged suicides, one of a Minot weapons guard, one of an assistant defense secretary, and one of a captain in the super-secret Air Force Special Commando Group, as well as alleged fatal vehicle "accidents" involving four ground crew and B-52 pilots and crewmembers at Minot and Barksdale? Could any of this strange cluster of deaths have been related to the incident? The Air Force "investigation" didn't even mention these incidents, and my investigation (http://www.amconmag.com/), reported in the Oct. 22 issue of the magazine American Conservative, found that none of the police investigators or medical examiners in those incidents had even been contacted by Air Force or other federal investigators.

The Secretary of Defense appears to have been upset about this incident. Secretary Robert Gates ordered an unprecedented stand-down of all air bases in mid-September to check out and account for the entire nuclear inventory, and a general was dispatched immediately to Minot after the discovery of the wayward nukes on August 30 to investigate what had happened. Following a subsequent Air Force investigation, 70 people at Minot and Barksdale AFBs were removed from their posts and decertified from handling nuclear weapons, including five officers, one of them the Minot base commander.

But a base commander does not have the authority to order nuclear weapons to be loaded on a plane and flown. So who issued that order and why has no one at a senior level in Washington been sacked? There is speculation that the order may have come via an alternate chain of command.

Vice President Dick Cheney is known to be pressing within the administration for a war with Iran, to be launched before Bush leaves office. According to some reports, Cheney has even, on his own authority (or lack thereof), urged Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, in hopes that Iran might retaliate, thus drawing the U.S. into a war.

Could the nation's war-mongering VP have used his neo-con contacts in the Defense Department or some of the Armageddon-believers in the Air Force to bypass the official chain of command and spring those nukes from their bunker?

Was there a plan to use one or more of those nukes -- W80-1 warheads that can be calibrated to detonate with an explosive power ranging from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons -- against Iran? The Advanced Cruise Missile, a stealth weapon almost impossible to spot on radar, is designed to be launched from a remote location by a B-52, and then to fly close to the ground to its target, using terrain maps and GPS guidance. It is also designed to penetrate hardened sites, such as Iran's nuclear processing and research facilities.

Or was there a plan for a so-called "false-flag incident," where a small nuke -- made to resemble a primitive weapon of the type a fledgling nuclear power might construct -- might be detonated at a U.S. target abroad, or even within the U.S.?

These are terrible and terrifying questions to have to ask, but when you have six nuclear weapons go missing, when the military investigation into the incident is so clearly a whitewash or coverup, and when you have a vice president who is openly pressing for an illegal war of aggression against a nation that poses no threat to the U.S., and who, in fact, appears to be conducting his own treacherous foreign policy behind the back of the president and the State Department, these questions must be asked and answered.

Wow. Interesting when you consider that the Air Force Academy is overrun with Armaggeddon religious right wackos.

(Edited for posting space limitations)

[spare_change]

Dave Lindorff: The Air Force Coverup of that Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight

Wow. Interesting when you consider that the Air Force Academy is overrun with Armaggeddon religious right wackos.

(Edited for posting space limitations)


1) What an amazing collection of innuendos, misstatements, and unrelated information compiled together to paint a conspiracy where none exists.

2) I take direct offense at the "Air Force Academy is overrun..." remark. It is simply bullshit ... no other way to paint it.

3) How he can tie and operational and administrative error to an "illegal act of aggression" qualifies as idiocy of the first order.

4) The security measures in place to prevent the accidental release and misappropriation of nuclear weapons are, by necessity, classified. After all, if it was publicly known how to circumvent the alarm systems at your local bank, I think you could reasonably expect it to be a high priority target for the local criminal element. Given that background, it is not surprising that the Air Force has been less than public with the facts of the incident.

I suggest the reader sort the facts from the suppositions, political attacks, and innuendo, and see what is really there (I'll give you a hint ..... it's about 5 sentences).

[mrdiscreet]

Air Force Academy leader admits faith bias is pervasive


Christian Century (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058), June 28, 2005 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_13_122)

Acknowledging that a religious bias favoring evangelical Christianity has been pervasive at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the school's superintendent told a Jewish audience this month that "it's going to take a while to fix," perhaps a half-dozen years, despite an official investigation of mounting complaints.

"I will tell you as a commander, I have problems in the cadet wing," said superintendent Lieutenant General John Rosa Jr. in remarks June 3 at an Anti-Defamation League national meeting in Broomfield, Colorado. "'I have issues in my staff, and I have issues in my faculty."

Rosa, a Catholic, said the academy will enforce limits on proselytizing and on-duty expressions of beliefs. Rosa's comments were his first admission of deep-seated problems. The religious bias complaints followed newsmaking scandals a few years ago when accounts of sexual assaults on female cadets resulted in a shakeup of leadership.

The academy, located on the scenic outskirts of Colorado Springs, has drawn support from evangelical Christians who say that religious freedom of expression is being unduly attacked. An executive with the conservative Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, called the complaints and investigation "a witch hunt."

At a banquet in the city last month that was sponsored by the nationwide Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Bobby Bowden, football coach of the Florida State University, asked, "If you knew the cure for cancer, would you tell somebody or would you keep it a secret?"

But others say evangelicals in and out of uniform speak out too aggressively at the academy, creating an environment that Americans United described as "systematic and pervasive religious bias and intolerance at the highest levels of the academy command structure."

Rosa said in his ADL talk that he saw nothing wrong with a biblically themed e-mail message to thousands of fellow cadets sent May 31 by the top graduating senior, Nicholas Jurewicz. "He didn't say you must use this," Rosa said.

But Rosa did criticize his second in command, commandant Brigadier General Johnny Weida, for "inappropriate" actions in calling for personnel to observe the National Day of Prayer, promoted heavily by evangelical organizations, and for advising cadets that their first duty is to God.

Rosa said he also criticized air force football coach Fisher DeBerry for placing a banner reading "I am a member of Team Jesus Christ" in the athletic facilities last fall.

Most of the more than 50 complaints of religious bias since 2000 at the academy stem from "pure ignorance," Rosa said. But he also said that a new training program, titled Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People, was a "baby step" that will be followed by the same intensive and repeated training that followed the sexual-assault scandal, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.

The religious complaints surfaced gradually. A pastoral care consultant from Yale University Divinity School, asked to assess the academy's chaplaincy programs, said in a report last year that there were "stridently evangelical themes" in the chaplains" programs.

In an interview with Religion News Service, report author Kristen Leslie said similar themes are found throughout the academy. "There's one religious voice, the conservative evangelical Christian voice, that has decided that it has the right to lay claim to the environment," she says, "and it is able to do that by working with the academy power structure."

Academy chaplain Melinda Morton has been one of the most outspoken critics of the school's religious culture. She contends that her criticism of the academy is one of the reasons she received an early transfer to Japan--a charge being investigated by the air force's personnel office.

Cadets have been frequently subjected to evangelical overkill, says Casey Weinstein, a Jewish graduate of the academy. Citing one example to RNS, Weinstein, now a second lieutenant at Los Angeles Air Force Base, said an aggressive promotional campaign for Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ included publicity flyers placed on meal plates at one point in the spring of 2004.

As cadets ate, images from the film flashed on cafeteria screens used for official messages. The distribution of flyers ended only after Weinstein and a handful of fellow cadets complained about the campaign.

COPYRIGHT 2005 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

I don't want Air Force officers entrusted with nuclear weapons deciding that "God" may order them to deploy those weapons.

[Iwantutowantme]

I am sure it is to Cheney's dismay that someone blew the whisle on his private war with Iran. It's my assumption they have been transporting these kind of weopons for a while now and finally got caught. I'm sure there is another way to smuggle nukes out of the country, preparing for Cheney/Bush/Corporate elete's and CIA's private war (using US tax payers assistance and the US military) to gain control of more resources in the middle east. (These wars have little to do with war on terrorism since we are the principle terrorist in the regions)*** Afghanistan and Iraq was only part of the plan to control world resouces, Iran is also a big part of it too. With record deficits in record time, wasting many billions of dollars (planned) in shameful contractor scams and so called rebuilding schemes (5 large permanet military bases) this administration and the global corporate elite that controls them are getting closer to usher in a new world order of the 'guilded age' kind. With the soon to come economic disaster from major world debtors, in which the US is the largest by far, will soon bring about the new world order system that will be put in place because the disaster that the world economic crisis brings about. Look on the back of your $l bill. There is a symbol of a pyramid with an evil all seeing eye on the top. Do you know what that is and why something so weird is even on the US dollar bill? It was placed there in the 1930's. The eye is the uliminati's symbol in its all seeing, knowing, controlling, influence on the rest of the pyramid. The pyramid consists of the influencial groups such as the Bilderbergs, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Duponts, Kenedys, Bushes, and many other influencial families that have infiltrated world governments, through political offices, elite buisness offices, religious offices, and many others. The caption just below the pyramid is in Latin..........it says....New World Order. right on it..

Kripto

[mrdiscreet]

Just curious what Kripto means; is this a nickname for yourself?

[spare_change]

I am sure it is to Cheney's dismay that someone blew the whisle on his private war with Iran. It's my assumption they have been transporting these kind of weopons for a while now and finally got caught. I'm sure there is another way to smuggle nukes out of the country, preparing for Cheney/Bush/Corporate elete's and CIA's private war (using US tax payers assistance and the US military) to gain control of more resources in the middle east. (These wars have little to do with war on terrorism since we are the principle terrorist in the regions)*** Afghanistan and Iraq was only part of the plan to control world resouces, Iran is also a big part of it too. With record deficits in record time, wasting many billions of dollars (planned) in shameful contractor scams and so called rebuilding schemes (5 large permanet military bases) this administration and the global corporate elite that controls them are getting closer to usher in a new world order of the 'guilded age' kind. With the soon to come economic disaster from major world debtors, in which the US is the largest by far, will soon bring about the new world order system that will be put in place because the disaster that the world economic crisis brings about. Look on the back of your $l bill. There is a symbol of a pyramid with an evil all seeing eye on the top. Do you know what that is and why something so weird is even on the US dollar bill? It was placed there in the 1930's. The eye is the uliminati's symbol in its all seeing, knowing, controlling, influence on the rest of the pyramid. The pyramid consists of the influencial groups such as the Bilderbergs, Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Duponts, Kenedys, Bushes, and many other influencial families that have infiltrated world governments, through political offices, elite buisness offices, religious offices, and many others. The caption just below the pyramid is in Latin..........it says....New World Order. right on it..

Kripto


You're joking, right?

[Cotties]

what do you mean...that was hell funny reading.....this guy's seriousYou're joking, right?

[spare_change]

what do you mean...that was hell funny reading.....this guy's serious



No way!

[Cotties]

go on...lets encourage him, he has more than one of these conspiracy stories hidden up his sleeve. They make good reading.:55 No way!

[oldandnaked]

He left out the part about the Bush administration being the ones who actually brought down the towers, holding Santa Claus for ransom and waterboarding the Easter Bunny.

[Iwantutowantme]

Ha!! Thanks for your comments :) I do have more, if you want to listen.


The recent Pakistan marshall law order is just a test for what this administration is considering. The Bush administration is watching the events very closely because they want to see what will happen, if and when they consider to do the same thing here in the US. ** When the economic crash happens ...it will produce a great depression that will be much worse than the one first great depresion that the republicans created the first time. You have to look at who is going to gain from a depression. The people wont, but the global corporate elite will. regards.........kripto :)

[mrdiscreet]

Dave Lindorff : More Questions About the Minot Nukes

The Pentagon has been stonewalling on my requests for answers to key questions. For two weeks, a public affairs office has been declining to respond to my question about whether the six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles flown by a B-52 from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB were programmed for specific targets, and, if so, what those targets were or even whether the team that investigated the incident checked to see if they were targeted.

The Air Force and Pentagon have also declined to explain whether U.S. nuclear weapons in storage in U.S. bunkers have been provided with the same alarm and motion-detection sensors that the National Nuclear Security Agency helped to install on the nukes being stored on Russian bases.

Clearly if such devices are standard on U.S. nukes, as several Air Force active and retired personnel have assured me is the case, then there is no way those weapons could have been removed from the Minot bunker by "mistake" as claimed the Air Force's official report on the incident.

The Pentagon has also refused to state whether the missiles were fueled up or not.

Finally, there is another big question that has not even been asked. Supposedly the reason the B-52 was flying to Barksdale with 12 missiles is that they are part of a total of 400 of these things, all of which have been declared obsolete and slated for destruction. But if all those Advanced Cruise Missiles are obsolete, then there is simply no reason for having any of them fitted with nuclear warheads. If they're obsolete, none of them would be on standby status. No one at Minot would ever be mounting a nuke on a cruise missile. Note that the Air Force is not claiming that the initial mounting of six warheads onto six missiles was a "mistake." Only that nobody in the subsequent chain of events was alerted to the fact that the warheads had been mounted. But why would warheads have been mounted on obsolete weapons in the first place?

Meanwhile, I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of this, but one Air Force vet tells me that the Advanced Cruise Missiles that were nuclear armed and mounted on a launch pylon on the B-52 in question would have been electronically linked to the plane automatically (which has the capability to program and reprogram the targeting of the missiles), and that therefore the pilot of the plane would have instantly seen on his instrument console that he had nukes on board that flight. He also told me the idea that the pilot would only have checked out the missiles mounted on one wing -- by chance the wing that had the six missiles with dummy warheads -- instead of both pylons and all 12 missiles as required, which is the claim of the Air Force report, is ludicrous. As he notes, pilots on these aging Stratofortresses see the pre-flight check as a life-or-death matter. Anything wrong on these planes can mean loss of the plane and even loss of the lives of the entire crew and of people on the ground. That would include the secure mounting of the missile cargo.

As a former semi-trailer driver myself, I know those checks of all the main systems -- air brakes, trailer linkage, tire pressure, lights, etc. -- are not taken lightly. Before you head out on the road with a trailer truck, you check out all the critical systems, because you know your life depends on their working properly. Surely this would be much more true with a strategic bomber, especially when it is carrying 12 missiles under its wings.

There is another question, raised by an Air Force vet, which also bears investigation. The Air Force is claiming the B-52 was supposedly ferrying 12 unarmed cruise missiles to Barksdale for disassembly. But a B-52, an antique aircraft that requires a big crew, demands enormous amounts of sevicing and repair and wastes a prodigious amount of fuel, is a terribly inefficient way to ferry these weapons to a graveyard. It would be infinitely cheaper to truck the missile bodies overland, or to stack and ship them in cargo planes, and in fact it simply defies belief that the Air Force would be doing this with Stratofortresses.

The more you look at this story, the more obvious it is that the Air Force claim that this was all just a big "mistake" has to be a blatant coverup of the truth.

[mrdiscreet]

The Cancer From Within

By David Antoon

(David Antoon is a Vietnam veteran and retired U.S. Air Force colonel)

“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ...”
—Oath of Office

“Our mission is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become officers of character motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.”
—Air Force Academy mission statement

“We will not lie, steal, or cheat. ...”
—Air Force Academy honor code

“Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.”
—Religious Toleration (Air Force Code of Ethics, 1997)

Forty-two years ago, at the age of 18, I took the oath of office on my first day as an Air Force Academy cadet. The mission of the academy was not only to train future leaders for the Air Force but for America as well, because, in the end, most academy graduates do not serve full military careers. The honor code became an integral part of everyday life. These are the values that I, and most graduates of the 1960s and early ’70s, took with us from our four years at the academy.

I, as did many graduates, underwent pilot training followed by tours of duty in Vietnam. Like military men and women of today, we did our best to become technically competent and professional leaders. Never, during my four years at the academy and subsequent pilot and combat training, was the word warrior used; nor, whether as a cadet or officer, did I ever encounter “Christian supremacist” rhetoric.

In April of 2004, my son, after receiving a coveted appointment to the United States Air Force Academy, asked me to accompany him to the orientation for new appointees. This 24-hour visceral event changed my life forever, and crushed my son’s lifelong dream of following in my footsteps.

The orientation began with a one-hour “warrior” rant to appointees and parents by the commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida. The fact that the word warrior had replaced leadership was a signal of what was to follow. I later learned that cadets, to determine when a new record was established, had created a game in which warrior was counted in each speech Weida gave.

My son and I then made our way to the modernist aluminum chapel, where I expected to hear a welcome from one or two Air Force chaplains offering counsel, support and an open-door policy for any spiritual or pastoral needs of these future cadets.

Instead, my son’s orientation became an opportunity for the academy to aggressively proselytize this next crop of cadets. Maj. Warren Watties led a group of 10 young, exclusively evangelical chaplains who stood shoulder to shoulder. He proudly stated that half of the cadets attended Bible studies on Monday nights in the dormitories and he hoped to increase this number from those in his audience who were about to join their ranks. This “invitation” was followed with hallelujahs and amens by the evangelical clergy. I later learned from Air Force Academy chaplain MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran who was forced to observe from the choir loft, that no priest, rabbi or mainline Protestant had been permitted to participate.

I no longer recognize the Air Force Academy as the institution I attended almost four decades earlier. At that point, I had no idea how invasive this extreme evangelical “cancer” had become throughout the entire military, that what I had witnessed was far from an isolated case of a few religious zealots.

The academy chaplain staff had grown 300 percent while the cadet population had decreased by 25 percent: from six mainline chaplains to 18 chaplains, the additional 12 all evangelical. The academy even gained 25 reserve chaplains, also nonexistent in earlier times, for a total of 43 chaplains for about 4,000 cadets, or one chaplain for every 100 cadets.

Here are just a few violations over the last three years: Academy football coach Fisher DeBerry (http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/23/team-jesus-banner-removed-at-air-force-academy.htm) hung a banner in the team locker room reading: “Competitor’s Creed: I am a Christian first and last. ... I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.” Baseball coach Mike Hutcheon, recruited from evangelical Christian Bethel College, forced players to lead team prayer during practice. When asked about locker room prayer in March 2007, Lt. Gen. John Regni, the academy superintendent, responded “we have chaplains that are attached to each of the teams and they are very important in that area.” In a July 12, 2005 interview with the New York Times, Brig. Gen. Cecil Richardson, Air Force deputy chief of chaplains, stated, “...we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched.” For over a decade, the official academy newspaper ran ads stating: “We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the World. If you would like to discuss Jesus, feel free to contact one of us! There is salvation in no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.” The ads were signed by 16 department heads, nine permanent professors, both the incoming and outgoing deans of faculty, the athletic director and more than 200 academy senior officers and their spouses.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, in just a few short years has received complaints from more than 6,000 service members and discovered church-state violations at the academies, at military installations in Iraq and around the world, and even within the inner corridors of the Pentagon.

In 2005, when Weinstein filed suit against the Air Force for constitutional violations of church-state separation, the House of Representatives, with little public notice, passed a chilling bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act, H.R. 2679, provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions that violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorney’s fees. According to The Washington Post, the purpose of this bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601486.html) is to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.

In December 2006, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation brought media focus to the Christian Embassy Evangelical Organization and its now famous video, which clearly showed the egregious ethics and constitutional violations of several flag officers and the breadth of the problem. Air Force Academy graduate Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, who suggested in the film that his religious beliefs trump country and his oath to the Constitution, was cited last year for sending e-mails to military subordinates and contractors advocating they vote for a particular candidate for Congress, arguing that there are “not enough Christians in Congress.” West Point graduate and Army Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, who was filmed stating “We are the aroma of Jesus Christ here in the Pentagon,” is now commandant of cadets at West Point. West Point graduate Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, another Christian Embassy star, was the “voice” and “face” of the press conferences at Qatar. His office is famous for the creation of the “Rambo” Jessica Lynch fabrications and the manipulation of the killing of Pat Tillman into a recruiting and media event. West Point graduate and evangelical Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich (http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20060728_worm_dirt/), involved in the investigation of Tillman’s death, stated publicly that Pat Tillman’s family was not at peace with his death because they are atheists who believe their son is now “worm dirt.” Air Force Academy graduate Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, assigned as the senior U.S. military officer in Turkey at the time the Military Religious Freedom Foundation brought the Christian Embassy into media focus, was questioned by Turkish officials about his membership in a radical evangelical cult.

The Christian supremacist fascism first reported at the Air Force Academy is endemic throughout the military. From the top down, there has been a complete repudiation of constitutional values and time-honored codes of ethics and honor codes in favor of religious ideology. And we now have a revolving door between Blackwater USA, which is Bush’s Praetorian Guard, and the U.S. military at every level. The citizen-soldier military dictated by our founding fathers has been replaced with professional and mercenary right-wing Christian crusaders in control of the world’s most powerful military. The risks to our democratic form of government cannot be overstated.

This evangelical Christian supremacist fascism within our military and government is a cancer. Officers, especially commanders, who violate the original code of ethics, must be rooted out of the military. The undermining of the Constitution, especially by senior military officers, must end.

As I look back at my 30 years as an active-duty officer, two combat tours in Vietnam, decorations including air medals and the Distinguished Flying Cross, I realize that not once was my service in support or defense of the Constitution. For the very first time, I am upholding my oath of office.

[CuriousGeorge]

I have never heard so much hatred for Christianity, although I must admit I am not really surprised. To see words like "cancer" and "supremacist fascism" used to describe the Christian faith seems absurd.

I respect anyone who is not afraid to share their faith, even from a position of authority. It is not an easy thing to do, especially when you know that you might get some reactions such as this one.

If this retired colonel wants to truly protect and defend the constitution, then he would defend the right of these men to share their personal beliefs, even though he disagrees with them.

Of course, he has a right to his own opinion, as I have a right to mine! :55

[mrdiscreet]

I have never heard so much hatred for Christianity, although I must admit I am not really surprised. To see words like "cancer" and "supremacist fascism" used to describe the Christian faith seems absurd.

I respect anyone who is not afraid to share their faith, even from a position of authority. It is not an easy thing to do, especially when you know that you might get some reactions such as this one.

If this retired colonel wants to truly protect and defend the constitution, then he would defend the right of these men to share their personal beliefs, even though he disagrees with them.

Of course, he has a right to his own opinion, as I have a right to mine! :55

I think the issue here is not the right to have faith, but abusing positions of power within public institutions to prosletize that faith to others.

It's called separation of church and state, and every one of those officers takes an oath of office to respect that separation.

[spare_change]

I think the issue here is not the right to have faith, but abusing positions of power within public institutions to prosletize that faith to others.

It's called separation of church and state, and every one of those officers takes an oath of office to respect that separation.


Interesting - did I miss that?

[mrdiscreet]

Interesting - did I miss that?

Perhaps you have an interpretation of the Constitution that trumps the US Supreme Court's on the establishment clause of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state?

Or perhaps this is one of those areas where your duty to God is higher than your duty to defend the Constitution?

[spare_change]

Perhaps you have an interpretation of the Constitution that trumps the US Supreme Court's on the establishment clause of the Constitution regarding separation of church and state?

Or perhaps this is one of those areas where your duty to God is higher than your duty to defend the Constitution?



MY duty to God? How do you purport to have even the slightest clue what I think my duty to God might be?

Maybe, just once, we could keep the discussion on the issue, and not personalize it.

If you wish to discuss the separation of church and state, I will be happy to do that. If you wish to discuss the importance of faith in the performance of duties as an Air Force officer, I will be happy to do that. If you wish to discuss the issues surrounding the Air Force Academy, I will be happy to do that.

But, my relationship with my God is my business, and I would appreciate it if you would stay the hell out of it.

[mrdiscreet]

MY duty to God? How do you purport to have even the slightest clue what I think my duty to God might be?

Maybe, just once, we could keep the discussion on the issue, and not personalize it.

If you wish to discuss the separation of church and state, I will be happy to do that. If you wish to discuss the importance of faith in the performance of duties as an Air Force officer, I will be happy to do that. If you wish to discuss the issues surrounding the Air Force Academy, I will be happy to do that.

But, my relationship with my God is my business, and I would appreciate it if you would stay the hell out of it.

Well, then please respond on the merits of the topic, which you failed to do in your prior post.

Your prior response was cryptic, but indicated you believe it is OK for USAF officers to use their official positions to prosyletize.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sense of why you belittled Constitutional duties on church/state separation.

So, yea or nay on using public office to impose religious views? Feel free to expand upon your reasoning as you wish.

But I will say that a military officer's relationship with God becomes of public concern if the oficer reserves the right to ignore their chain of command if he or she "hears" God issue a higher order to drop bombs. If that claim is made (and I am not saying that you are taking that position), then those individuals should be booted from their military offices. (It's an entirely diferent isue than standing down on moral grounds if an order offends religious belief.)

[mrdiscreet]

At the old age of 60 ( or more) your brain is a bit demented. kripto

It can get hard to trace back where personal insults begin, but doing one's best to ignore that and get back to merits makes this a much better thread.

I've done my share of escalating insults, but can we move this thread back to responding to (or ignoring) arguments made? I think there are some important concepts worth debate that are getting lost in the barrage.

[mrdiscreet]

Buddhist hall opens at academy chapel



The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Oct 30, 2007 6:10:03 EDT
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. — Air Force cadets who practice Buddhism now have a place of their own to gather under the aluminum spires of the academy’s famed chapel.

The 300-square foot Vast Refuge Dharma Hall in the chapel’s basement opened Monday, with about two dozen people gathering to chant to the beat of a drum.

The academy has 26 cadets who practice Buddhism, up from 16 earlier this year.

Religion has been a controversial topic at the academy, with a group of graduates claiming that evangelical Christian values have been pushed onto cadets. Their lawsuit was dismissed last year. A judge said they couldn’t claim their rights were violated because they no longer attended the academy.

Norman Oberstein of the Lenz Foundation for American Buddhism said the opening of the chapel shows that the military has grown to accept all kinds of faiths.

“It has reached out to overcome those challenges,” said Oberstein, whose group made a contribution toward the $85,000 cost of the hall.

The academy’s chapel also hosts Protestant, Catholic and Jewish services. Dozens of other religious and nonreligious groups also meet in the building.

[mrdiscreet]

AN INTERFAITH VIEW: Onward, Christian soldiers? http://www.infocusnews.net/images/M_images/printButton.png (http://www.infocusnews.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17465&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=421) http://www.infocusnews.net/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://www.infocusnews.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=17465&itemid=421) By LAWRENCE SWAIM, Columnist
When Michael "Mikey" Weinstein went to the Air Force Academy in the 1970s, he was harassed and badly beaten for being Jewish. But over the years, things seemed to get better for Jews in the American military — there was dialogue with Christians, where before there’d been confrontation. So it was especially traumatic when Weinstein was told in 2004 by his son, Curtis, who was then a cadet at the Air Force Academy, that non-Christians were again being targeted. This time the goal wasn’t only to harass them. Now the goal was forced conversion to Christianity.

Mikey — who insists on his nickname — went into advocacy overdrive. He founded a nonprofit called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, dedicated to exposing unconstitutional proselytizing against junior officers and enlisted personnel.

The MRFF uncovered a network of Christian extremists, with powerful friends in the Pentagon, who seek to forcibly convert people in the armed services. Then they want to use the armed services to forcibly convert everybody else.

The groups include Christian Embassy, Officers’ Christian Fellowship and Operation Straight Up. (Until pressure from MRFF caused it to be canceled, OSU planned to send the convert-or-kill video game "Left Behind" to all troops in Iraq as part of a so-called "Military Crusade.") The fanatical beliefs of these rightwing evangelicals (often called Dominionists) have deeply influenced Pat Robertson, James Dobson, John Hagee and much of the Religious Right. Many are working to create a kind of evangelical fascism within the U.S. military; in foreign policy they want all-out religious war.

But the Pentagon isn’t in any hurry to move against them. In fact, the No. 2 ranking chaplain in the Air Force, Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, told the New York Times that the chaplaincy "reserved the right to evangelize the un-churched." Christian Embassy was allowed to make a recruiting film in the Pentagon itself. According to an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times co-authored by Mikey Weinstein and Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American author who writes on Islam, one Air Force official at the Pentagon said he assumed that Christian Embassy was a "quasi-federal entity."

Most Religious Right leaders assert that proselytizing in the military is an exercise of free speech. But when commissioned officers try to impose a religious point of view on junior officers or enlisted personnel, it is an outrageous, coercive misuse of power.

Let’s say an officer tells a Muslim cadet that he’ll burn in hell if he doesn’t become a Christian. Is that protected speech under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? No, because the officer is violating the Establishment Clause of that same Amendment. Therefore, his speech isn’t protected — and is, in fact, unconstitutional. Weinstein knows this better than most, having been an Air Force judge advocate general for many years.

"I’ve received over 5,000 complaints from active service people," Weinstein told InFocus. "Most are mainline Christians who resent seeing their religion hijacked by extremists." Muslims and Roman Catholics are special targets for evangelization, he said. "There’s no doubt whatsoever that they’re getting political cover from government."

Mikey Weinstein is a force of nature. He engages in outrageous hyperbole, he is irredeemably colorful and he cusses like — well, like a retired military man. He reports that his living room window has been shot out twice in the last two months, and he receives death threats daily. But he’s a man on a mission — to protect the U.S. Constitution and religious pluralism against the gathering forces of theocracy.

Lawrence Swaim is the Executive Director of the Interfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialties are American Studies and American literature. His column addresses current affairs from an American Christian and Interfaith perspective.

[p.a]

.....................................

[mrdiscreet]

..... (objection to prior deleted post)

[tiger50]

ok guys.. my take on this.....i have no opinion one way or the other...really dont care....u guys are behavin like friggin kids, yeh well my dad can beat tha shit outta ur dad......andd so??????
state ur case, argue, but it has got out of hand here.....all u wankers..BACK OFF.....i am not gunna judge who is right or wrong here.....not my call.... just fukkin stop it... not good for the site.....GET IT!!!!.. NOW GO HAVE SOME FUN ON ANOTHER THREAD.....

[CuriousGeorge]

Most Religious Right leaders assert that proselytizing in the military is an exercise of free speech. But when commissioned officers try to impose a religious point of view on junior officers or enlisted personnel, it is an outrageous, coercive misuse of power.



I actively try to share my beliefs with others, hoping that they will be converted. I guess that's what you call "proselytizing." But it's impossible to coerce someone to true faith, and anyone who tries is a fool.

Even while I say that, I know there have been many attempts throughout history to force the conversion of various groups at the point of a sword, or the threat of war, even. I still says they were fools. You can force someone to behave a certain way, or follow certain rules, but if you try to force them to believe, you will only succeed in turning them away.

I think that those who use religion to fuel hatred and division are not true believers, and I hope that you won't lump us all together in your judgment. I also hope that, if the opportunity ever arises, and I ask you about your faith, or try to tell you about mine, that you will not be instantly defensive because of some religious coersion that you may have experienced.

I don't see that an officer making statements about his own faith (even if he does it during a public speech), or participating in a Bible study, or even encouraging others to be like-minded is in any way a "coercive misuse of power". If he gives special priveleges to those that share his faith, or if he somehow punishes or threatens those that don't, then of course he's gone too far.

Because I appreciate the freedom to worship and to share my faith, I would defend the right of others to do the same, no matter what their religious beliefs.

[Shiane]

The Cancer From Within

The Christian supremacist fascism first reported at the Air Force Academy is endemic throughout the military. From the top down, there has been a complete repudiation of constitutional values and time-honored codes of ethics and honor codes in favor of religious ideology. And we now have a revolving door between Blackwater USA, which is Bush’s Praetorian Guard, and the U.S. military at every level. The citizen-soldier military dictated by our founding fathers has been replaced with professional and mercenary right-wing Christian crusaders in control of the world’s most powerful military. The risks to our democratic form of government cannot be overstated.

This evangelical Christian supremacist fascism within our military and government is a cancer. Officers, especially commanders, who violate the original code of ethics, must be rooted out of the military. The undermining of the Constitution, especially by senior military officers, must end.


Originally Posted by mrdiscreet
Baseball's Rockies seek revival on two levels

By Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY

DENVER — No copies of Playboy or Penthouse are in the clubhouse of baseball's Colorado Rockies. There's not even a Maxim. The only reading materials are daily newspapers, sports and car magazines and the Bible.

Music filled with obscenities, wildly popular with youth today and in many other clubhouses, is not played. A player will curse occasionally but usually in hushed tones. Quotes from Scripture are posted in the weight room. Chapel service is packed on Sundays. Prayer and fellowship groups each Tuesday are well-attended. It's not unusual for the front office executives to pray together.

On the field, the Rockies are trying to make the playoffs for the first time in 11 seasons and only the second time in their 14-year history. Behind the scenes, they quietly have become an organization guided by Christianity — open to other religious beliefs but embracing a Christian-based code of conduct they believe will bring them focus and success.

From ownership on down, it's an approach the Rockies are proud of — and something they are wary about publicizing. "We're nervous, to be honest with you," Rockies general manager Dan O'Dowd says. "It's the first time we ever talked about these issues publicly. The last thing we want to do is offend anyone because of our beliefs."

My heart was with the Rockies until I read this. Let's see a Red Sox sweep!


Note from God: screen for talent, not by religious intolerance.

What's a sweep plus a spanking? A swanking :sp:

But maybe God has just been too busy shoring up Notre Dame :D



I'm just wondering what it is about Christianity that you have a problem with?

It is apparent you don't think it belongs in the Air Force, but you even poked fun at it when you found out that the Colorado Rockies openly prayed and embraced christian beliefs.

You said you served in the military for a long time, you took an oath to uphold "The Constitution" .... Well if I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, Isn't one of those rights the FREEDOM OF RELIGION? :sc


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[p.a]

I actively try to share my beliefs with others, hoping that they will be converted. I guess that's what you call "proselytizing." But it's impossible to coerce someone to true faith, and anyone who tries is a fool.

Even while I say that, I know there have been many attempts throughout history to force the conversion of various groups at the point of a sword, or the threat of war, even. I still says they were fools. You can force someone to behave a certain way, or follow certain rules, but if you try to force them to believe, you will only succeed in turning them away.

I think that those who use religion to fuel hatred and division are not true believers, and I hope that you won't lump us all together in your judgment. I also hope that, if the opportunity ever arises, and I ask you about your faith, or try to tell you about mine, that you will not be instantly defensive because of some religious coersion that you may have experienced.

I don't see that an officer making statements about his own faith (even if he does it during a public speech), or participating in a Bible study, or even encouraging others to be like-minded is in any way a "coercive misuse of power". If he gives special priveleges to those that share his faith, or if he somehow punishes or threatens those that don't, then of course he's gone too far.

Because I appreciate the freedom to worship and to share my faith, I would defend the right of others to do the same, no matter what their religious beliefs.

Now this is a sensible post. I like it George. Good job.

[cherokeered]

what is this thread about anyway????????????

[p.a]

what is this thread about anyway????????????





OK the short of it is that recently some Nukes wound up on Air Force Planes that flew across the US. This is a violation of protocol. The air force has had a hard time explain how this could happen with all the safe guards in place. Right around the same time and Air Force General in charge of the Air force academy eluded that he was a Christian and that he encouraged others of rank to recruit others ( for lack of a better term ). Now all this separately means nothing but put together one might see a Christian fundamentalist conspiracy.

Now so that no one accuses me of being bias I suggest you go and google the actual news reports to get the facts and not take my word verbatim.

[mrdiscreet]

I'm just wondering what it is about Christianity that you have a problem with?

It is apparent you don't think it belongs in the Air Force, but you even poked fun at it when you found out that the Colorado Rockies openly prayed and embraced christian beliefs.

You said you served in the military for a long time, you took an oath to uphold "The Constitution" .... Well if I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, Isn't one of those rights the FREEDOM OF RELIGION? :sc


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(1) See the bolded portion of your quote; it is actually intended to ensure that religious freedom continues to exist.

(2) I have never stated I have served in the military. I stated military officers take oaths to defend the Constitution, as do all public officials.

(3) I have no difficulty with anyone's religious beliefs; more power to you in finding faith that helps you. I consider myself a spiritual person, but don't choose to discuss my spirituality on this site.

(4) You are correct that I am very sensitive to people attempting to impose their faith on others. For the Rockies, I think players and staff should not be excluded form jobs, or have to be evangelized on the job, if they may happen not to be fundamentalist Christian. That would be religious discrimination, and against the law. Does your employer post scripture quotes on the walls of your workplace?

(5) For the USAF, as a government entity, it is imperative that officers acting in their offical capacities be neutral on religion. If they want to have VOLUNTARY off-duty prayer groups, and take pains not to coerce cadets, fine; but the reports are that it has gone much further than that. Again, that would be disrespecting the cadets freedom of -- and from -- religion.

(6) So, all I am really saying is I am for both freedom of -- and freedom from -- religion. I'm not sure how my comments got turned around to me trying to prevent anyone from believing as they wish; unless someone thinks "believing as they wish" includes the right to prosyletize to others who aren't interested in hearing the message.

[mrdiscreet]

I actively try to share my beliefs with others, hoping that they will be converted. I guess that's what you call "proselytizing." But it's impossible to coerce someone to true faith, and anyone who tries is a fool.

Even while I say that, I know there have been many attempts throughout history to force the conversion of various groups at the point of a sword, or the threat of war, even. I still says they were fools. You can force someone to behave a certain way, or follow certain rules, but if you try to force them to believe, you will only succeed in turning them away.

I think that those who use religion to fuel hatred and division are not true believers, and I hope that you won't lump us all together in your judgment. I also hope that, if the opportunity ever arises, and I ask you about your faith, or try to tell you about mine, that you will not be instantly defensive because of some religious coersion that you may have experienced.

I don't see that an officer making statements about his own faith (even if he does it during a public speech), or participating in a Bible study, or even encouraging others to be like-minded is in any way a "coercive misuse of power". If he gives special priveleges to those that share his faith, or if he somehow punishes or threatens those that don't, then of course he's gone too far.

Because I appreciate the freedom to worship and to share my faith, I would defend the right of others to do the same, no matter what their religious beliefs.

I applaud most of what you've said with a couple comments:

(1) When officers are on duty, I think they must honor their office and avoid "sharing" their religious beliefs in that setting.

(2) I'm perfectly comfortable with my beliefs, so no, I don't really care to hear yours. Just as I don't feel the need to save you by seeking to change your beliefs. But wherever you find someone who is open to your message, may you both enjoy the journey. God bless.

(3) I think I can boil it down to one word: tolerance. Accept that people may have different beliefs that are as valid as yours; I am turned off by evngelicals who believe they own the one truth, and refuse to respect other beliefs. (And I am NOT saying that describes you.)

[Shiane]

(1) See the bolded portion of your quote; it is actually intended to ensure that religious freedom continues to exist.

(2) I have never stated I have served in the military. I stated military officers take oaths to defend the Constitution, as do all public officials.

Laffs ummmm see I thought the bold part was your comment, so shoot me! :D

(3) I have no difficulty with anyone's religious beliefs; more power to you in finding faith that helps you. I consider myself a spiritual person, but don't choose to discuss my spirituality on this site.

Thats fine, your choice.

(4) You are correct that I am very sensitive to people attempting to impose their faith on others. For the Rockies, I think players and staff should not be excluded form jobs, or have to be evangelized on the job, if they may happen not to be fundamentalist Christian. That would be religious discrimination, and against the law. Does your employer post scripture quotes on the walls of your workplace?

I don't disagree with you, I don't want anyone imposing their religion on me either. But, if I want to practice it, it's no ones business but mine.

Funny you should ask about my employer... I worked for a Catholic hospital recently. Well I'm not Catholic, but every night at 8pm they would have a prayer over the speaker system. Scriptures on the walls, big assed statues of saints, bibles, pictures of the pope. Not my religion, but I respected it, didn't agree with it, didn't necessarily like having it shoved down my throat either. Certainly didn't agree with the way they did business. The thing is, it was my choice to be there or not, just like the Rockies. I chose to leave not because of the 8pm prayer that was loud enough to wake the dead, but because they didn't treat their employees very well. They wanted a herd of workers who lined up when they were told to and to never questioned authority, well that isn't how I work. If I have a problem, everyone is gonna hear about it until I get an answer and a solution.

But anyhoo, I just noticed both of the posts, so I had to ask.

[toowildtotame]

Lets see what to talk about?? Politics? Religion? hmmmm! I think not -- lets talk about sex or better yet meeting some of these wonderful ladies in person *grin*:kk

[p.a]

Lets see what to talk about?? Politics? Religion? hmmmm! I think not -- lets talk about sex or better yet meeting some of these wonderful ladies in person *grin*:kk

Sex instead of religion and politics? Wow what a concept.........I like it!!!!!!!!

[mrdiscreet]

But anyhoo, I just noticed both of the posts, so I had to ask.

No problem, happy to clarify. :)

I think the church-related employment is an interesting twist; in that setting, I'd lean more toward accepting that one has signed into a religious zone.

[mrdiscreet]

Lets see what to talk about?? Politics? Religion? hmmmm! I think not -- lets talk about sex or better yet meeting some of these wonderful ladies in person *grin*:kk

We all have our aphrodisiacs :D

[tt]

1) What an amazing collection of innuendos, misstatements, and unrelated information compiled together to paint a conspiracy where none exists.

2) I take direct offense at the "Air Force Academy is overrun..." remark. It is simply bullshit ... no other way to paint it.

3) How he can tie and operational and administrative error to an "illegal act of aggression" qualifies as idiocy of the first order.

4) The security measures in place to prevent the accidental release and misappropriation of nuclear weapons are, by necessity, classified. After all, if it was publicly known how to circumvent the alarm systems at your local bank, I think you could reasonably expect it to be a high priority target for the local criminal element. Given that background, it is not surprising that the Air Force has been less than public with the facts of the incident.

I suggest the reader sort the facts from the suppositions, political attacks, and innuendo, and see what is really there (I'll give you a hint ..... it's about 5 sentences).

1. Several reports have come of the United States Deapartment of the Air Force in which Cadets and Faculty report being harassed or denied promotion for attending worship services.

2. No person in uniform can be forced to obey an order they know to "Illegal, Immoral, or Violates the Good Order and Dicipline of the United States Military." United Manual for Courts Martial.

3. The Air Force Responsible for the loading of live nuclear weapons have either been relieved of duty or facing trial by Courts Martial for Derliction of Duty.

Sometimes, you need do something called research before jumping on a story you think doesn't adhere to your brand of love it or leave conservative thought.

[tt]

I'm just wondering what it is about Christianity that you have a problem with?

It is apparent you don't think it belongs in the Air Force, but you even poked fun at it when you found out that the Colorado Rockies openly prayed and embraced christian beliefs.

You said you served in the military for a long time, you took an oath to uphold "The Constitution" .... Well if I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, Isn't one of those rights the FREEDOM OF RELIGION? :sc


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The right to freedom of religion is also the right to be free from religion. No individual or group of indiviuals, regardless of their status or position, has a right to inflict, push or demand their religious belief on another individual.

The right to worship does not give any one individual or group of individuals the right to decide that their personal, private religous belief is the only religious belief that can be or should be taught, acknowledged or tolerated.

You want to worship your god your way, fine. That is a right I fought for in Viet Nam, a right I damn near died for. But that right does not mean you or any other individual has a right to force your god down someone else's throat.

What happened at Colorado Springs, commissioned uniformed officers of the United States Air Force, using that commission to force people to go to church or attend bible study is wrong.

The right to freedom of religon is exactly that, but that right does not give any individual or group of inividuals the right to push their religion on others.

There are those people, who by personal and private decision, have chosen a different religion practice, or no religious practice at all. That is a protected right as well.

Their rights are just as important and they have the same right and expectation of right to be free from religious persecution and have the right to expect that their religious practice or lack thereof can be and should be respected.

[Annie]

The right to freedom of religion is also the to be free from religion. No person has a right to inflict, push or demand their religious belief on another person.

You want to worship your god your way, fine. That is a right I fought for in Viet Nam, a right I damn near died for. But that right does not mean you or any other person has a right to force your god down someone else's throat.

What happened at Colorado Springs, commissioned uniformed officers of the United States Air Force, using that commission to force people to go to church or bible study is wrong.Whatever gave you that idea? Have you ever been to court? "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" and what's under your hand??

What's on money? In God we trust!! No one ever promised you freedom FROM religion! Anyone who takes an oath of office does it on the bible. There's always going to be some form of Christian beliefs written into law! Do you enjoy the Christmas Holiday you get? How about Easter? Does your town put up a Christmas tree at City Hall? Hey I could go on, but I think you get my point!

Now what if I ain't Christian? Am I having someone else's God shoved down my throat?

[p.a]

Whatever gave you that idea? Have you ever been to court? "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" and what's under your hand??

What's on money? In God we trust!! No one ever promised you freedom FROM religion! Anyone who takes an oath of office does it on the bible. There's always going to be some form of Christian beliefs written into law! Do you enjoy the Christmas Holiday you get? How about Easter? Does your town put up a Christmas tree at City Hall? Hey I could go on, but I think you get my point!

Now what if I ain't Christian? Am I having someone else's God shoved down my throat?

Not exactly. Except for the money part. In some instances you can wave taking the oath in court using the bible if you declare yourself an atheist. Being that your oath would not be binding because you would be swearing to something you have no belief in. I'm not sure about local and state elected officials but Federal elects have two swearing in ceremonies. The one with the bible is symbolic but there also sworn in with whatever religious artifact they believe in. The congressman from Minnesota was sworn in using the Koran. ( he's Moslem ). Ben Franklin I believe was the first Post Master General and was sworn in using a book that had blank pages. He was an atheist.
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865). And Republican.

Many people celebrate Christmas just for that and not because it's the birth of Christ.

Just an FYI.

[p.a]

Oh I forgot to add that I am not anti God or anti religion. Some people here like to lump people into certain groups. I'm just passing on info. Not trying to pick a fight.

[Annie]

Oh I forgot to add that I am not anti God or anti religion. Some people here like to lump people into certain groups. I'm just passing on info. Not trying to pick a fight.Oh I do understand that you're discussing, not argueing.... no problem there!

The things that I mentioned in my prior post are considered "the norm" and not hard and fast rules.

I'm not anti-God either and I do have my faith. It just doesn't fall into the catagory of Christianity.

[p.a]

Oh I do understand that you're discussing, not argueing.... no problem there!

The things that I mentioned in my prior post are considered "the norm" and not hard and fast rules.

I'm not anti-God either and I do have my faith. It just doesn't fall into the category of Christianity.

I'm not sure what my faith is. I was raised baptist but of late I find so many inconsistencies between what the bible says and what people who call themselves " Christians " actually do.

I don't doubt God. I doubt people.

[spare_change]

Ben Franklin I believe was the first Post Master General and was sworn in using a book that had blank pages. He was an atheist.

That's not exactly correct. Ben Franklin was born into an Episcopalian family, and studied for the divinity. However, he later became, and claimed to be, a Deist, rather than a Theist.

Deism is a religious school of thought that maintains that God created the world as we know it, and then abandoned it. Deists generally believe in heaven and hell, but believe in the act of self determination. I found this definition of Deism -- "Deism is the belief in god or deity based on reason. It typically rejects supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator."

The reason this is an important distinction from atheism is that Deism was the prevailing religious attitude of the writers of the Constitution. In addition to Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen were just a few of the Deists who helped to form this country. Going back and reviewing the founding documents, based on a Deist perspective, helps to add clarity to the intent of the founding fathers.

As an aside, most of us who claim to believe in God, but not in conventional religions, are probably Deists at heart, even if we didn't know it.

[spare_change]

I have no desire to get embroiled in an argument about religious freedom, but I do want to add clarity and facts to the comments about the Air Force Academy.

1) During the period 2001 - 2006, there were over 19,000 students at the Air Force Academy.

2) On average, 90% of the students are Christians, 1% Jewish, and the rest Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, etc.

3) During the period 2001-2006, 55 complaints of religious intolerance were filed, most of them against fellow cadets.

4) As a result of the complaints, all Air Force members at AFA were required to attend religious tolerance training.

5) As a result of the complaints, an official investigation, at a cost of $4.2 million, determined that while, there were isolated instances of proselytizing between cadets, there was no systemic inclination to try to convert non-Christians. During the investigation, all cadets were polled, and all non-Christian cadets were personally interviewed.

6) There were three lawsuits filed against the Air Force alleging religious rights violations. All three lawsuits were dismissed, and subsequent appeals upheld those original decisions. (This data might be out of date -- the source was dated 2006, and some had said they were going to re-file).

7) The Air Force reviewed its policies, and made changes that heightened religious sensitivity and stressed religious tolerance. All commanders, and subordinate personnel, were briefed accordingly.

Hardly a case of egomaniacs with God complexes taking over the military.

[mrdiscreet]

I am happy to hear about the institutional changes as the AFA; this is exactly what I hoped would take place to put the AFA back on the right track. And I beleive the senior leadership was replaced?

As to the dismissal of the lawsuits, it is my understanding that they were dismissed on standing grounds -- that the plaintiffs were no longer at the AFA, so could not pursue their claims. This is a far different result that a court ruling that there was no basis to the religious discrimination claims.

[mrdiscreet]

That is the catch-phrase of Campus Crusde for Christ's Military Ministry.

Despite the reforms at AFA, it appears there is an element in our military services which is determined to pursue larger evangelical agendas:

1. Campus Crusade for Christ has a Military Ministry with the stated aim to "Transform our culture through the US Military" and the stated belief that "We should never be satisfied with just having Bible studies of like minded believers. We need to take seriously the Great Commission."

2. The Great Commission refers to Matthew 28:19 -- "Go and make disciples of all nations.

3. The Executive Director of the Military Ministry has stated, "We must pursue our particular means for transforming the nation -- through the military. And the military may well be the most influential way to affect that spiritual superstructure. Militaries exercise, generally speaking, the most intensive and purposeful indoctrination program of citizens" Maj. Gen. (ret.) Bob Dees, Executive Director

4. The Military Ministry is endorsed by Maj. Gen. Rob't L Caslen, now Commandant of West Point. Caslen received this appointment even though he was censured for appearing in uniform promoting Campus Crusade's Christion Embassy while at the Pentagon.

So it seems we have a group of evangelical Christians determined to turn our soldiers, sailors and marines into crusaders.

Defend the nation, yes; transform the nation? Into what, a theocracy?

[p.a]

That's not exactly correct. Ben Franklin was born into an Episcopalian family, and studied for the divinity. However, he later became, and claimed to be, a Deist, rather than a Theist.

Deism is a religious school of thought that maintains that God created the world as we know it, and then abandoned it. Deists generally believe in heaven and hell, but believe in the act of self determination. I found this definition of Deism -- "Deism is the belief in god or deity based on reason. It typically rejects supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator."

The reason this is an important distinction from atheism is that Deism was the prevailing religious attitude of the writers of the Constitution. In addition to Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen were just a few of the Deists who helped to form this country. Going back and reviewing the founding documents, based on a Deist perspective, helps to add clarity to the intent of the founding fathers.

As an aside, most of us who claim to believe in God, but not in conventional religions, are probably Deists at heart, even if we didn't know it.

I did some research and find that your correct. I stand corrected.

[David01]

Spare Change

You said it much better than I could have! Here's my 1rst amendment right being exercised...listen now..A-man and God bless!!!!!

Freedom to exercise one's religion is protected....deal with it!

David

[David01]

hello..david

[mrdiscreet]

Spare Change

You said it much better than I could have! Here's my 1rst amendment right being exercised...listen now..A-man and God bless!!!!!

Freedom to exercise one's religion is protected....deal with it!

David

Deal with what? I read Spare's post as affirming that the Air Force Academy was ensuring that officers would not use their official positions to evangelize cadets, and that they should not be doing so.

So what is the dispute?

Peace out

[spare_change]

Deal with what? I read Spare's post as affirming that the Air Force Academy was ensuring that officers would not use their official positions to evangelize cadets, and that they should not be doing so.

So what is the dispute?

Peace out



It's the way I said it --- with authority!!! LOL

[mrdiscreet]

It's the way I said it --- with authority!!! LOL

Which calls for a salute

(you might want to frame this one, I'm sure I'll regret it.)

[PunkyBob]

The rise of the religious right has been a problem for a while now...the evangelicals have been getting more and more obvious influence since 2001 (it's been on the rise since the mid 60s) and came to national attention since Dubya took power. Hey, I'm not religious and I don't want to have someone else's beliefs shoved into my face. Worship whatever you want, just keep it at home and in your place of worship. Beyond that, mixing religion with affairs of state gives us a theocracy, a dangerous situation when one believes in salvation for themselves and hell for anyone whose opinion differs. And mixing religion with military matters, when nukes are involved, scares the bejeezus outta me. It's not that farfetched. Example: look at Gen. Jerry Boykin's record:

"He has gained notoriety for his Christian Fundamentalist views over the last few years and some unprofessional public remarks. Boykin is a born-again Christian, who has cast the "War on Terror" in apocalyptic terms. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2004 that he had violated regulations by failing to explain these remarks were not made in an official capacity.

Boykin achieved wide-spread media coverage for his statements that appeared to frame the War on Terror in religious terms, first broadcast on NBC News, October 15, 2003. William Arkin, military analyst for NBC-TV News, was the source of the video and audiotapes of Boykin. The following day the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on Boykin. Amongst several quotes, the LA Times article revealed Boykin giving a speech about hunting down Osman Atto in Mogadishu: "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"Apocalyptic terms"???? Personally, I don't want a religious fanatic in a high military position. Whatever the deal is, we do not know the full story of the misappropriated nukes, we probably never will. But it is not a wacko supposition to envision a high-ranking military officer or officers or even the current administration moving nukes around for their own hidden agendas. No one likes a black eye on their profession and a lot of things have been suppressed--or spun into sophist nonsense--to avoid publicity and repurcussions.

[spare_change]

The rise of the religious right has been a problem for a while now...the evangelicals have been getting more and more obvious influence since 2001 (it's been on the rise since the mid 60s) and came to national attention since Dubya took power. Hey, I'm not religious and I don't want to have someone else's beliefs shoved into my face. Worship whatever you want, just keep it at home and in your place of worship. Beyond that, mixing religion with affairs of state gives us a theocracy, a dangerous situation when one believes in salvation for themselves and hell for anyone whose opinion differs. And mixing religion with military matters, when nukes are involved, scares the bejeezus outta me. It's not that farfetched. Example: look at Gen. Jerry Boykin's record:

"He has gained notoriety for his Christian Fundamentalist views over the last few years and some unprofessional public remarks. Boykin is a born-again Christian, who has cast the "War on Terror" in apocalyptic terms. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2004 that he had violated regulations by failing to explain these remarks were not made in an official capacity.

Boykin achieved wide-spread media coverage for his statements that appeared to frame the War on Terror in religious terms, first broadcast on NBC News, October 15, 2003. William Arkin, military analyst for NBC-TV News, was the source of the video and audiotapes of Boykin. The following day the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on Boykin. Amongst several quotes, the LA Times article revealed Boykin giving a speech about hunting down Osman Atto in Mogadishu: "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"Apocalyptic terms"???? Personally, I don't want a religious fanatic in a high military position. Whatever the deal is, we do not know the full story of the misappropriated nukes, we probably never will. But it is not a wacko supposition to envision a high-ranking military officer or officers or even the current administration moving nukes around for their own hidden agendas. No one likes a black eye on their profession and a lot of things have been suppressed--or spun into sophist nonsense--to avoid publicity and repurcussions.


Let's put away the issue of military leaders, nukes, and jesus for a minute. Let me ask you a question .....

Do you prefer your leader to have a religious-driven moral compass or an atheistic one? Do you believe that religion plays a part in the development of the character of man, or creates flaws in his ability to reason logically?

Ok -- back to the issue of military leaders, nukes, and Jesus ....

It's a pretty big leap to equate 55 complaints over 6 years (48 - I think that was the number - of which were against other cadets) in a crowd of 19,000 with power-mad Jesus freaks running wild with nuclear weapons stuck under their arms. If I interpret your comments correctly, you would prefer that all our military officers have no religious background.

The full story of the "misappropriated" nukes is, in fact, quite well known. They weren't misappropriated - they were mishandled. In fact, it was an administrative error that led one group to believe they were conventional weapons, while another was tracking them as nuclear. The specific administrative error is, of course, classified. It's a pretty long leap to draw any parallels between the two clearly unrelated situations -- kinda grasping at straws, in my opinion.

[mrdiscreet]

Well, you must concede the full story is, in fact, not well known. Perhaps it can't be due to security concerns, but the point is nukes flew across the country and we are left in the dark on the details about how that happened. That is indisputable.

I definitely don't want a president who is a dominionist, driven by an agenda of bringing Christ as the one true savior to a country and world comprised of many different cultures. And I reject the arrogance of implying that a moral compass only develops through some sort of "correct" religious doctrine. Maybe I'm a deist per your earlier quote. But in my eyes, organized religious belief has caused more war and death than peace. Is an outwardly religious President who authorizes torture operating within a moral compass? No.

I'm frankly suspicious of politicians who wear their faith on their sleeve instead of quietly letting their good works speak for their character.

[spare_change]

Well, you must concede the full story is, in fact, not well known. Perhaps it can't be due to security concerns, but the point is nukes flew across the country and we are left in the dark on the details about how that happened. That is indisputable.

I definitely don't want a president who is a dominionist, driven by an agenda of bringing Christ as the one true savior to a country and world comprised of many different cultures. And I reject the arrogance of implying that a moral compass only develops through some sort of "correct" religious doctrine. Maybe I'm a deist per your earlier quote. But in my eyes, organized religious belief has caused more war and death than peace. Is an outwardly religious President who authorizes torture operating within a moral compass? No.

I'm frankly suspicious of politicians who wear their faith on their sleeve instead of quietly letting their good works speak for their character.

Sorry -- maybe the phrase wasn't clear -- I was wondering whether you want a leader who has religious based moral compass or an atheist based moral compass.

[mrdiscreet]

Sorry -- maybe the phrase wasn't clear -- I was wondering whether you want a leader who has religious based moral compass or an atheist based moral compass.

Such a rigid mind! OK, I'm fine with either, or agnostic, or humanist, or existentialist, or buddhist, or muslim ... -- as long as he or she respects the Constitution and accepts that we live in a pluralistic society and world. Why judge character by religious labels?

[Cotties]

I'm just pleased to see you two get along so well

[PunkyBob]

Let's put away the issue of military leaders, nukes, and jesus for a minute. Let me ask you a question .....

Do you prefer your leader to have a religious-driven moral compass or an atheistic one? Atheistic, please; no interpretations of what "god" wants.

Do you believe that religion plays a part in the development of the character of man, or creates flaws in his ability to reason logically? Both, but look at how many deaths, wars, etc., have been in the name of religion.

Ok -- back to the issue of military leaders, nukes, and Jesus ....

It's a pretty big leap to equate 55 complaints over 6 years (48 - I think that was the number - of which were against other cadets) in a crowd of 19,000 with power-mad Jesus freaks running wild with nuclear weapons stuck under their arms. If I interpret your comments correctly, you would prefer that all our military officers have no religious background. Religious background is fine, as long as knows its place deep in the background of the overall social contract, and dominionism is not a part of the overall plan. I see no difference between a fundamentalist of either Islam or Christianity. If that is your (general usage of pronoun, not specific) belief, then mazel tov, my friend, may your life flourish.But do not use that belief to change, alter, or in any way affect the world at large. Especially with things that go bang in the night. I do not believe that our armed forces are overrun with power-crazed fundamentalists, but I do believe in keeping an eye on it. I believe there is a difference between conspiracy theory and reality check. Bush claims to be a born-again, bin Laden also uses his religion to guide his life. I consider both extremely dangerous, as their recent histories have proven.

The full story of the "misappropriated" nukes is, in fact, quite well known. They weren't misappropriated - they were mishandled. In fact, it was an administrative error that led one group to believe they were conventional weapons, while another was tracking them as nuclear. The specific administrative error is, of course, classified. It's a pretty long leap to draw any parallels between the two clearly unrelated situations -- kinda grasping at straws, in my opinion. Granted, that may be the case...and if it were an administrative error, then send the careless clerk out to dig latrines for the rest of his or her tour. In this day and age, closer watches need to be in place.

[PunkyBob]

I'm just pleased to see you two get along so well

You're just sitting there grinning, aren't you? :na

[Annie]

Sorry -- maybe the phrase wasn't clear -- I was wondering whether you want a leader who has religious based moral compass or an atheist based moral compass. I want a leader with morals.

How about this for Christan values.... remember this?

Father: Funeral protest made him sick
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 10/25/2007 10:24:57 AM EDT

BALTIMORE -- The father of a Marine killed in Iraq took the stand in his invasion of privacy suit against a fundamentalist church that pickets soldiers' funerals, saying protesters carrying signs at his son's burial made him sick to his stomach.

Albert Snyder said Wednesday he had hoped for a private funeral for his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.

"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family," Snyder testified. "They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside."

Snyder is suing the Westboro Baptist church, whose members have picketed the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming the deaths are punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. The York resident is seeking unspecified monetary damages in the case for invasion of privacy and intent to inflect emotional distress as a result of the Topeka, Kan., church's protest at his son's funeral in Westminster in March 2006.

[PunkyBob]

I want a leader with morals.


I agree, Annie. I'd like them to have a sense of ethics, too.

[p.a]

I just want a leader with a Brain. Lately leaders with " A Moral Compass " have been caught in airport washrooms soliciting male under cover cops, Getting massaged by openly gay men, discovered to have molested children while in the priesthood, and extorting money from the church ( TV ministry ) to live lavishly ( Wife with over 200 pairs of expensive shoes ). What if any of these had run for president on there moral compass? In a land of many religions it does not make sense to have a leader who has a religious agenda. Thats the problem Iraq's leadership is having right now. Instead of a " Moral compass ", how about just good common sense. How about an inclusive president instead of an exclusive one? A Moral Compass is what we've had in the white house for the last 6 years. We really want that mess again?

[spare_change]

I want a leader with morals.

How about this for Christan values.... remember this?


Everything in this world has edges -- outer fringes, whether it be Christians or tree huggers or whatever.

To select one of the fringes and try to portray it as the norm is disingenuous at best.

[spare_change]

I just want a leader with a Brain. Lately leaders with " A Moral Compass " have been caught in airport washrooms soliciting male under cover cops, Getting massaged by openly gay men, discovered to have molested children while in the priesthood, and extorting money from the church ( TV ministry ) to live lavishly ( Wife with over 200 pairs of expensive shoes ). What if any of these had run for president on there moral compass? In a land of many religions it does not make sense to have a leader who has a religious agenda. Thats the problem Iraq's leadership is having right now. Instead of a " Moral compass ", how about just good common sense. How about an inclusive president instead of an exclusive one? A Moral Compass is what we've had in the white house for the last 6 years. We really want that mess again?


So, a moral compass and a brain are mutually exclusive?

[tt]

I have considered my self a diest for a long time. Organzied religion is one the biggest cons going. And the first rule of any good con is "Know Your Mark." And organzied religion knows their mark very well indeed.

[p.a]

So, a moral compass and a brain are mutually exclusive?

Are they? It seems to me that those individuals whom I named in my recent post claim to have a moral compass but lack the brains to keep from getting caught acting immorally.

[tt]

Whatever gave you that idea? Have you ever been to court? "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" and what's under your hand??

What's on money? In God we trust!! No one ever promised you freedom FROM religion! Anyone who takes an oath of office does it on the bible. There's always going to be some form of Christian beliefs written into law! Do you enjoy the Christmas Holiday you get? How about Easter? Does your town put up a Christmas tree at City Hall? Hey I could go on, but I think you get my point!

Now what if I ain't Christian? Am I having someone else's God shoved down my throat?

"Congress shall no law respecting an establishment of religion OR the free excerise thereof..." No state sponsered religion. As for the oath taken in court, I was sworn a juror one time. When the oath was administered, I stated both to the clerk and the judge that I do would weigh all evidence to be best of my ability. When asked for the "So Help You God" part, I looked over at the Judge and said "How about the United States Constitution instead?" He smiled and accepted that as an alternative.

Christmas, Easter and other Christian Holidays were taken from the Pagans. A Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol. It it my right TO NOT ACCEPT, PRACTICE OR BE FORCE TO PRACTICE any religion, in any form. Nor can you or anyother person tell me different. Freedom of Religion is double edged sword. Those of us who chose not go to church, have the self same right as those who do. The right to be FREE from religion.

[spare_change]

Let's put away the issue of military leaders, nukes, and jesus for a minute. Let me ask you a question .....

Do you prefer your leader to have a religious-driven moral compass or an atheistic one? Atheistic, please; no interpretations of what "god" wants.

Do you believe that religion plays a part in the development of the character of man, or creates flaws in his ability to reason logically? Both, but look at how many deaths, wars, etc., have been in the name of religion.

Ok -- back to the issue of military leaders, nukes, and Jesus ....

It's a pretty big leap to equate 55 complaints over 6 years (48 - I think that was the number - of which were against other cadets) in a crowd of 19,000 with power-mad Jesus freaks running wild with nuclear weapons stuck under their arms. If I interpret your comments correctly, you would prefer that all our military officers have no religious background. Religious background is fine, as long as knows its place deep in the background of the overall social contract, and dominionism is not a part of the overall plan. I see no difference between a fundamentalist of either Islam or Christianity. If that is your (general usage of pronoun, not specific) belief, then mazel tov, my friend, may your life flourish.But do not use that belief to change, alter, or in any way affect the world at large. Especially with things that go bang in the night. I do not believe that our armed forces are overrun with power-crazed fundamentalists, but I do believe in keeping an eye on it. I believe there is a difference between conspiracy theory and reality check. Bush claims to be a born-again, bin Laden also uses his religion to guide his life. I consider both extremely dangerous, as their recent histories have proven.

The full story of the "misappropriated" nukes is, in fact, quite well known. They weren't misappropriated - they were mishandled. In fact, it was an administrative error that led one group to believe they were conventional weapons, while another was tracking them as nuclear. The specific administrative error is, of course, classified. It's a pretty long leap to draw any parallels between the two clearly unrelated situations -- kinda grasping at straws, in my opinion. Granted, that may be the case...and if it were an administrative error, then send the careless clerk out to dig latrines for the rest of his or her tour. In this day and age, closer watches need to be in place.

In reverse order ....

1) Actually, the three people that made the error (the one who made the mistake and the two who didn't do their job monitoring him) were all punished and removed from the Air Force.

2) And, how many have been killed in the name of self aggrandizement, power grabs, and greed? Just in the past 100 years, I can think of 30 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 2.5 million Cambodians, 3 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds, not to mention 8 million lost in WWI, the estimated 7 million lost in WWII, 185,000 in Korea, and 55,000 (US only) in Viet Nam. None of those were done in the name of furthering religion. The statement that more people have died in the name of religion than any other reason, while popular, doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny.

3) If a leader is atheistic, to whom does he answer? Where does he get his values? How does he define right and wrong? I get real nervous about a leader who doesn't have a commitment to his personal sense of right and wrong and tries to govern based on what's popular today (oh wait! That was Bill Clinton!)

4) Your comment "no difference between a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist" fails to draw the distinction of how each would choose to implement, or force upon, if you will, his beliefs. The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq (by the way, Bush is not a fundamentalist - "born again" and "fundamentalist" are not synonymous). The fact that bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist is EXACTLY why he attacked Christians. Christians believe in a "live and let live" policy, but choose to minister to those who don't "see the light". Islamics believe you kill the non-believer -- fuck that conversion stuff. THAT is a hell of a difference.

[p.a]

In reverse order ....

1) Actually, the three people that made the error (the one who made the mistake and the two who didn't do their job monitoring him) were all punished and removed from the Air Force.

2) And, how many have been killed in the name of self aggrandizement, power grabs, and greed? Just in the past 100 years, I can think of 30 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 2.5 million Cambodians, 3 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds, not to mention 8 million lost in WWI, the estimated 7 million lost in WWII, 185,000 in Korea, and 55,000 (US only) in Viet Nam. None of those were done in the name of furthering religion. The statement that more people have died in the name of religion than any other reason, while popular, doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny.

3) If a leader is atheistic, to whom does he answer? Where does he get his values? How does he define right and wrong? I get real nervous about a leader who doesn't have a commitment to his personal sense of right and wrong and tries to govern based on what's popular today (oh wait! That was Bill Clinton!)

4) Your comment "no difference between a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist" fails to draw the distinction of how each would choose to implement, or force upon, if you will, his beliefs. The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq (by the way, Bush is not a fundamentalist - "born again" and "fundamentalist" are not synonymous). The fact that bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist is EXACTLY why he attacked Christians. Christians believe in a "live and let live" policy, but choose to minister to those who don't "see the light". Islamics believe you kill the non-believer -- fuck that conversion stuff. THAT is a hell of a difference.

I thought the Constitution covered this part. A leader in this country does not have to depend solely on his sense of right and wrong like maybe ( Saddam Hussein or George W Bush ), that would be a dictatorship. A leader in this country leads by the will of the people. I get real nervous when a leader thinks he knows whats better for the people than the people do.

[p.a]

King Charles I....a ruler of moral compass who literally lost his head for his religious leadership.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/charles1.htm

[spare_change]

I thought the Constitution covered this part. A leader in this country does not have to depend solely on his sense of right and wrong like maybe ( Saddam Hussein or George W Bush ), that would be a dictatorship. A leader in this country leads by the will of the people. I get real nervous when a leader thinks he knows whats better for the people than the people do.


That's obtuse, and you know it -- I didn't ask who his office answered to -- I asked who the man answered to -- when he makes recommendations, or implements direction, to whom does he look? What is his moral compass? How does he determine right and wrong?

[Annie]

"Congress shall no law respecting an establishment of religion OR the free excerise thereof..." No state sponsered religion. As for the oath taken in court, I was sworn a juror one time. When the oath was administered, I stated both to the clerk and the judge that I do would weigh all evidence to be best of my ability. When asked for the "So Help You God" part, I looked over at the Judge and said "How about the United States Constitution instead?" He smiled and accepted that as an alternative.

Christmas, Easter and other Christian Holidays were taken from the Pagans. A Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol. It it my right TO NOT ACCEPT, PRACTICE OR BE FORCE TO PRACTICE any religion, in any form. Nor can you or anyother person tell me different. Freedom of Religion is double edged sword. Those of us who chose not go to church, have the self same right as those who do. The right to be FREE from religion. Religion is a set of beliefs. The Government doesn't sponser any set religion, just as the Bible doesn't represent one set of beliefs. The bible or the Holy Bible... whatever you prefer, is used is many, many different religions.

What I am getting from your post is that you want the government to completely deny any existance of God. Hard to do.... the very reason this nation exists was a desire for the freedom to practice our religion.

[Huzyerdaddi]

That's obtuse, and you know it -- I didn't ask who his office answered to -- I asked who the man answered to -- when he makes recommendations, or implements direction, to whom does he look? What is his moral compass? How does he determine right and wrong?

I've been watching this thread for a while now. My comments are merely observation. There have been some good arguments made on both sides of a variety issues interwoven throughout the thread.

AND, I feel compelled to mention that in recent days, the discussion has (pick a word: arrived at, evolved, developed into) a fundamental issue, being what guides an individual and motivates that person to think, speak, and behave the way they do. For public officials whom have been granted power that potentially affects many, this is a valid question to ponder. In an effort to address the question with relation to the person of authority (which in itself is mere speculation as no man can know another's heart) we inevitably arrive at or approach conclusions based on our own respective backgrounds.

For example, to feel secure about someone who has "their finger on the button", we want to know their heart. We feel the need to understand them so that we might predict their behavior. For one person this mental push-up will involve the analysis of the role a higher power plays in life of the authority figure. While another person will apply a legal basis, such as the consitution. The problem is, both of the litmus tests in each case are in and of themselves subject to eternal and infinite debate (until, perhaps a day when one is irrefutably proven).

So, I submit to you all this is a great exercise in philosophical, religious, and governmental debate. I encourage it.....and (not but) keep it in perspective.

Kindest Regards!

[p.a]

That's obtuse, and you know it -- I didn't ask who his office answered to -- I asked who the man answered to -- when he makes recommendations, or implements direction, to whom does he look? What is his moral compass? How does he determine right and wrong?

You know Hitler was his own counsel who believed in God. He had a moral compass that directed him to slaughter millions of jews.

The point is that man is fallible. No matter how good intentioned, and morally straight he thinks he is. Thats why we have government for the people and by the people so that one man cannot decide for all the people what he or she thinks is right. Thats why we have a majority rule and not rule by one mans principles.
Kings and Queens lead by there perception of right and wrong.

I'm not saying a leader should not do some personal insight. But he or she should be tempered with good counsel and the will of the people in mind.

Obtuse?
So you consider me: unfeeling, tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, boorish; slow, dim.

[mrh50]

it will hapen some day hope your ready.

[spare_change]

You know Hitler was his own counsel who believed in God. He had a moral compass that directed him to slaughter millions of jews.

The point is that man is fallible. No matter how good intentioned, and morally straight he thinks he is. Thats why we have government for the people and by the people so that one man cannot decide for all the people what he or she thinks is right. Thats why we have a majority rule and not rule by one mans principles.
Kings and Queens lead by there perception of right and wrong.

I'm not saying a leader should not do some personal insight. But he or she should be tempered with good counsel and the will of the people in mind.

Obtuse?
So you consider me: unfeeling, tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, boorish; slow, dim.





LOL -- I didn't comment about you -- I said your comment was obtuse -- as in angular in approach, not on point.

As for Hitler, I think if you have read his works, you will agree he was a Deist who was severely unbalanced. To equate him to Christian crusaders is tarring all with the wrong brush.

I think it is naive, though, to think that our government structure mitigates the impact of the moral judgment of its leaders. The President, who admittedly cannot act unilaterally, has direct influence on policy development and implementation decisions. His moral acuity is reflected in everything he does, just as yours is reflected in what you do. When he decides to sign or veto a particular bill, it is his moral judgment that determines his decision. He, of course, has several advisers who, relying on their moral code, make recommendations to him, but in the end, he is the one who makes the decision. When you decide to take a two hour lunch, it is your moral acuity that allows you to do that. Our moral acuity is reflected in EVERY decision we make.

[PunkyBob]

In reverse order ....

1) Actually, the three people that made the error (the one who made the mistake and the two who didn't do their job monitoring him) were all punished and removed from the Air Force.

2) And, how many have been killed in the name of self aggrandizement, power grabs, and greed? Just in the past 100 years, I can think of 30 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 2.5 million Cambodians, 3 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds, not to mention 8 million lost in WWI, the estimated 7 million lost in WWII, 185,000 in Korea, and 55,000 (US only) in Viet Nam. None of those were done in the name of furthering religion. The statement that more people have died in the name of religion than any other reason, while popular, doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny.

3) If a leader is atheistic, to whom does he answer? Where does he get his values? How does he define right and wrong? I get real nervous about a leader who doesn't have a commitment to his personal sense of right and wrong and tries to govern based on what's popular today (oh wait! That was Bill Clinton!)

4) Your comment "no difference between a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist" fails to draw the distinction of how each would choose to implement, or force upon, if you will, his beliefs. The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq (by the way, Bush is not a fundamentalist - "born again" and "fundamentalist" are not synonymous). The fact that bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist is EXACTLY why he attacked Christians. Christians believe in a "live and let live" policy, but choose to minister to those who don't "see the light". Islamics believe you kill the non-believer -- fuck that conversion stuff. THAT is a hell of a difference.


To address your points:

1 - Thank you, I did not know that.

2 - Adding it up is neither here nor there, I think. Enough deaths have been caused in the name of religion to warrant a wise man's caution...I offer (over time, please) the Crusades, abortion doctor assassinations, the christians who fell to the lions in Rome, the Jews killed and expelled from nearly everywhere, the "re-education" of the native Americans, the Inquistions, and many more too numerous to name.

3 - A good leader does not have to answer to a religious set of morals or ethics; he or she (in theory, anyway) acts for the common good, regardless of strictures from the Bible, Koran or Talmud. A commitment to right over wrong is irrelevant to any religious dictum.

4 - "The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq." I agree. I believe we're there because of oil and hegemony. However Bush has actively and widely courted the religious right in this country and demonstrably so, through numerous portrayals and activities that were specifically designed to enhance a vision of him as a dominionist. If he aligns himself with a particular religious group, the I think I can safely propose that he feels that that association will increase his power base. Therefore I can suppose that in doing so, Bush has chosen his allies specifically for continued patronage and because of religious sympathies.

Any way you wanna cut it, I ain't taking nobody's word on the afterlife or rewards or punishments after death. I'll find out when I get there. There should be a wall between church and state. A bigass wall. The USA is not a christian nation; we are a country that supposedly welcomes all to freely practice their individual beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR the free excerise thereof..."

[p.a]

LOL -- I didn't comment about you -- I said your comment was obtuse -- as in angular in approach, not on point.

As for Hitler, I think if you have read his works, you will agree he was a Deist who was severely unbalanced. To equate him to Christian crusaders is tarring all with the wrong brush.

I think it is naive, though, to think that our government structure mitigates the impact of the moral judgment of its leaders. The President, who admittedly cannot act unilaterally, has direct influence on policy development and implementation decisions. His moral acuity is reflected in everything he does, just as yours is reflected in what you do. When he decides to sign or veto a particular bill, it is his moral judgment that determines his decision. He, of course, has several advisers who, relying on their moral code, make recommendations to him, but in the end, he is the one who makes the decision. When you decide to take a two hour lunch, it is your moral acuity that allows you to do that. Our moral acuity is reflected in EVERY decision we make.

I think it is naive of you to suggest that every time a president signs or veto's a bill it is because of his " Moral Acuity " when in fact it's mostly about the politics of the party in control, You yourself have criticized the moral compass of a leader ( Bill Clinton ). In fact your criticisms seem to be centered around one particular party. ( Just an observation )

Hitler was unbalanced. But he did not start out that way. He was very sane in the beginning. He was also a calculating politician who once claimed to be Roman Catholic in order to get there support. Whether or not he was a Deist or Catholic does not matter. What he believes himself to be can be dangerous. So I say again, The man or woman I want in office is the one who leads by common sense.
Obtuse or angular, that is my opinion. That is what I believe.

The United States has a two party system. Unfortunately both parties are over run by crazy people.
This is why we are divided.

[mrdiscreet]

In reverse order ....

1) Actually, the three people that made the error (the one who made the mistake and the two who didn't do their job monitoring him) were all punished and removed from the Air Force. I would still like to know that details of what apparent authority was or was not involvd in this incident. The report does not address this point, and we could be given a basic understanding of whether there were chain of command breaches without givng away state secrets.

2) And, how many have been killed in the name of self aggrandizement, power grabs, and greed? Just in the past 100 years, I can think of 30 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 2.5 million Cambodians, 3 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds, not to mention 8 million lost in WWI, the estimated 7 million lost in WWII, 185,000 in Korea, and 55,000 (US only) in Viet Nam. None of those were done in the name of furthering religion. The statement that more people have died in the name of religion than any other reason, while popular, doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny. Not so fast. Nazi Germany in particular appropriated religious symbolism and had the active collusion of religious leaders. Societies cannot march to war without buy-in from the "moral compass" religious leaders and populace.

3) If a leader is atheistic, to whom does he answer? Where does he get his values? How does he define right and wrong? I get real nervous about a leader who doesn't have a commitment to his personal sense of right and wrong and tries to govern based on what's popular today (oh wait! That was Bill Clinton!) Oh, if only we could have had Bill Clinton over Bush for the past eight years! What a disaster Bush has been; a moral compass that points toward adopting torture policies? A war of aggression? Shame. Atheists are generally thoughful people who get to that belief from lots of self-reflection; I feel no need to label an atheist as unworthy. The publicly pious on the other hand ...

But if you want to vote only for politicians who play up their religious affiliations, I don't really care. Vote for leaders on whatever basis you wish.

4) Your comment "no difference between a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist" fails to draw the distinction of how each would choose to implement, or force upon, if you will, his beliefs. The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq (by the way, Bush is not a fundamentalist - "born again" and "fundamentalist" are not synonymous). The fact that bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist is EXACTLY why he attacked Christians. Christians believe in a "live and let live" policy, but choose to minister to those who don't "see the light". Islamics believe you kill the non-believer -- fuck that conversion stuff. THAT is a hell of a difference. Onward Christian soldiers. Or should I say "warriors"? Or should I say Blackwater Crusaders? There most definitely is a wing of the dominionists which believes religious war with muslims is inevitable, and converting the world by gunpoint, or killing muslims, or other un-converteds, is doing God's work. I do agree one should not take the extremists to taint a broad group -- I do not view militarist dominionists as representatives of Christian values.

[mrdiscreet]

I'm just pleased to see you two get along so well

:la

Why thank you!

[spare_change]

To address your points:

3 - A good leader does not have to answer to a religious set of morals or ethics; he or she (in theory, anyway) acts for the common good, regardless of strictures from the Bible, Koran or Talmud. A commitment to right over wrong is irrelevant to any religious dictum.

I find your "commitment to right over wrong is irrelevant" comment to be intriguing. Are you saying that "right and wrong" is NOT a religious tenet? "acts for the common good" -- so, I guess we can say that you would be in favor of torturing an individual if you knew that he had information that would be "for the common good" -- i.e., our example of the terrorist who knows where the nuclear bomb that is going to blow up Cleveland (probably a bad choice, huh?) is located. Your leader should be able to set aside all thoughts of what he finds morally repugnant and operate under a "for the common good" concept? You believe that a candidate's religion should be a non-issue in a campaign? Romney's Mormonism, Guiliani's Catholicism, Clinton's Methodist fundamentalism? None of those tell you anything about the essence of the individual? None of those tell you anything about how the person might be influenced or react in a given situation?

4 - "The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq." I agree. I believe we're there because of oil and hegemony. However Bush has actively and widely courted the religious right in this country and demonstrably so, through numerous portrayals and activities that were specifically designed to enhance a vision of him as a dominionist. If he aligns himself with a particular religious group, the I think I can safely propose that he feels that that association will increase his power base. Therefore I can suppose that in doing so, Bush has chosen his allies specifically for continued patronage and because of religious sympathies.

And, of course, the same would be true for Romney, Guliani, Clinton, Obama, Putin, Howard, Sarkozy, Merkel, bin Laden, Maliki, or any of the others, if we follow your supposition that association with a particular religious base is a politically motivated action.

Any way you wanna cut it, I ain't taking nobody's word on the afterlife or rewards or punishments after death. I'll find out when I get there. There should be a wall between church and state. A bigass wall. The USA is not a christian nation; we are a country that supposedly welcomes all to freely practice their individual beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR the free excerise thereof..."

Well, actually, the USA IS a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles and Christian ideals. To deny the existence of that heritage is just plain wrong - one of those Christian principles is the principle of respect for others and their beliefs. Your quote doesn't deny the influence and existence of religion in the US - it merely says that Congress can't deny others the right to exercise their particular brand. That doesn't mean that the US is a theocracy with a goal of advancing Christianity - it merely means that the country is built on Christian tenets. The "separation of church and state" argument is a relatively new concept that was generated in the 30s by sympathizers for the Communist/Fascist movement at that time.

[PunkyBob]

To address your points:

3 - A good leader does not have to answer to a religious set of morals or ethics; he or she (in theory, anyway) acts for the common good, regardless of strictures from the Bible, Koran or Talmud. A commitment to right over wrong is irrelevant to any religious dictum.

I find your "commitment to right over wrong is irrelevant" comment to be intriguing. Are you saying that "right and wrong" is NOT a religious tenet? "acts for the common good" -- so, I guess we can say that you would be in favor of torturing an individual if you knew that he had information that would be "for the common good" -- i.e., our example of the terrorist who knows where the nuclear bomb that is going to blow up Cleveland (probably a bad choice, huh?) is located. Your leader should be able to set aside all thoughts of what he finds morally repugnant and operate under a "for the common good" concept? You believe that a candidate's religion should be a non-issue in a campaign? Romney's Mormonism, Guiliani's Catholicism, Clinton's Methodist fundamentalism? None of those tell you anything about the essence of the individual? None of those tell you anything about how the person might be influenced or react in a given situation?
I believe that right and wrong are independent of religious dogma. When I say "for the common good" I mean within a moral and ethical set of standards that enriches and develops a society. Naturally not everyone in that society fits into that model. Let's not assume there is a universal panacea. My argument is not whether or not a religious comitment tells me something about that person, that's an obvious deduction,but whether that person's religious mindset will lead him or her to policies specific to a certain group disregarding the health of the whole. And as far as torture goes, I believe that if the USA is to lead the way to righteousness, fairness and moral suprriority, we need to stop doiing and own up to our own jingoism and rhetoric. As for the nuke question...I believe that's a bit of a setup, isn't it??

4 - "The fact that Bush is a born-again Christian was NOT a factor in why we went into Iraq." I agree. I believe we're there because of oil and hegemony. However Bush has actively and widely courted the religious right in this country and demonstrably so, through numerous portrayals and activities that were specifically designed to enhance a vision of him as a dominionist. If he aligns himself with a particular religious group, the I think I can safely propose that he feels that that association will increase his power base. Therefore I can suppose that in doing so, Bush has chosen his allies specifically for continued patronage and because of religious sympathies.

And, of course, the same would be true for Romney, Guliani, Clinton, Obama, Putin, Howard, Sarkozy, Merkel, bin Laden, Maliki, or any of the others, if we follow your supposition that association with a particular religious base is a politically motivated action.
Yes, it would. But Bush has gone out of his way to do so, whereas the majority of politicians do not. I do not expect politicians to be free from religious beliefs, but I do expect them not to adopt their agendas.


Any way you wanna cut it, I ain't taking nobody's word on the afterlife or rewards or punishments after death. I'll find out when I get there. There should be a wall between church and state. A bigass wall. The USA is not a christian nation; we are a country that supposedly welcomes all to freely practice their individual beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR the free excerise thereof..."

Well, actually, the USA IS a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles and Christian ideals. To deny the existence of that heritage is just plain wrong - one of those Christian principles is the principle of respect for others and their beliefs. Your quote doesn't deny the influence and existence of religion in the US - it merely says that Congress can't deny others the right to exercise their particular brand. That doesn't mean that the US is a theocracy with a goal of advancing Christianity - it merely means that the country is built on Christian tenets. The "separation of church and state" argument is a relatively new concept that was generated in the 30s by sympathizers for the Communist/Fascist movement at that time.
Sorry, Spare, but I disagree with you, absolutely and totally 100%. The question came up and Jefferson dealt with it back in 1800 or so. The nation was founded as a rebuttal to England's monarchial dictatorship, with elements of "new" thought from the times...Locke, Rousseau...elements that drew away from a central leadership and gave more rights and freedoms to the population. If some of these tenets are common with christianity, then great. And yes, the founders were christian, and I'm sure they operated as most christians do...but they did not base this country in a specifically christian foundation.

[spare_change]

Sorry, Spare, but I disagree with you, absolutely and totally 100%. The question came up and Jefferson dealt with it back in 1800 or so. The nation was founded as a rebuttal to England's monarchial dictatorship, with elements of "new" thought from the times...Locke, Rousseau...elements that drew away from a central leadership and gave more rights and freedoms to the population. If some of these tenets are common with christianity, then great. And yes, the founders were christian, and I'm sure they operated as most christians do...but they did not base this country in a specifically christian foundation.
[/QUOTE]

It just so happens that I am a Jeffersonian student - I have admired him since I was in high school, and have read most of his works, letters, etc. I think he was one of the most brilliant, and articulate, leaders of his or any other time.

The response by Jefferson was a bit different than you portray it. Here is the text of the draft letter he sent responding to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. This is widely known as the Wall of Separation letter. Its contents come as no surprise, since Jefferson was the driving force behind the original "religion" language in the Constitution, much to the chagrin and dismay of his counterparts. (There is ample documentation that Jefferson got this inserted in the Constitution by -- Adams' words -- "force of personality" -- to indicate he browbeat the others into accepting it). The bracketed part was deleted from the final letter, but I show it because if further details his intent. (Notice the difference in the tone of it if you leave out the bracketed part ... which is the final product).

"To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802."

The letter was intended to do nothing more than to reiterate the stand in the Constitution ---- that Congress will not get involved in the establishment, administration, or practice of religion. It does not deny, nor does it prevent, the impact of Christianity on the US. It is a long leap (obviously about 230 years) to think that this is the basis for a call for our leaders to renounce their religious affiliations, or that the government should PREVENT the practice of religion (local laws banning nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc. come to mind).

[mrdiscreet]

Well, actually, the USA IS a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles and Christian ideals. To deny the existence of that heritage is just plain wrong - one of those Christian principles is the principle of respect for others and their beliefs. Your quote doesn't deny the influence and existence of religion in the US - it merely says that Congress can't deny others the right to exercise their particular brand. That doesn't mean that the US is a theocracy with a goal of advancing Christianity - it merely means that the country is built on Christian tenets. The "separation of church and state" argument is a relatively new concept that was generated in the 30s by sympathizers for the Communist/Fascist movement at that time.

Sorry, No. The founders were very aware of persecution of Quakers (not a Christian sect), and very focused on keeping religious politics, so to speak, separae from governmental politics.

Respect for other belief systems is a tenet of Christianity? Hmmm.

Of course America's founders grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture. But they did not enshrine that culture into our government; very decidely (and wisely) steersing the power of the State clear of manipulation from any religious sect which may achieve dominance.

[spare_change]

Sorry, No. The founders were very aware of persecution of Quakers (not a Christian sect), and very focused on keeping religious politics, so to speak, separae from governmental politics.

Respect for other belief systems is a tenet of Christianity? Hmmm.

Of course America's founders grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture. But they did not enshrine that culture into our government; very decidely (and wisely) steersing the power of the State clear of manipulation from any religious sect which may achieve dominance.


A dispute that has been raging between Constitutional scholars for the last 80 years ---- I suspect, other than rehashing positions, we aren't going to settle it here.

[mrdiscreet]

A dispute that has been raging between Constitutional scholars for the last 80 years ---- I suspect, other than rehashing positions, we aren't going to settle it here.

Except that I have not seen the Constitution claimed as a Christian document in any serious constitutional scholarship I am aware of (i.e., law journals, legal scholarship). It is well settled that we are not a Christian nation as a matter of law (although heavily Christian in culture); perhaps this debate is raging within fringe Christian circles?

If memory serves, there are no references to God at all -- much less a Christian God -- in the Constitution; there is an express bar against establishment of religion (any religion), and religious tests are expressly barred to screen out office holders. An office holder may pledge by oath or affirmation service to office. The founding fathers certainly knew how to establish a Christian nation if they wished; in fact, it must have taken extraordinary focus not to do so at the time.

[Outta]

Mr D:

I appreciate where you're coming from, but to understand this subject, you need to refer back to the primary author of the US Constitution, especially the man who penned the 1st amendment, Mr. James Madison.

Madison's other writings staunchly support a separation of church and state, which he clearly defines as non-intervention in government by ecclesiastical bodies. However, Madison also explained the 3 branches of gov't by quoting the book of Isaiah, and offered this quotation at his first inaugural address.
"...we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

How 'bout this quote:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Religious men and women in gov't is not the problem. It's the ignorant masses that believe the platitudes and lies of gov't officials, some of whom use religion (or opposition to it) to further their agenda.

[Outta]

Air Force Academy leader admits faith bias is pervasive


Christian Century (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058), June 28, 2005 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_13_122)

Acknowledging that a religious bias favoring evangelical Christianity has been pervasive at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the school's superintendent told a Jewish audience this month that "it's going to take a while to fix," perhaps a half-dozen years, despite an official investigation of mounting complaints.

"I will tell you as a commander, I have problems in the cadet wing," said superintendent Lieutenant General John Rosa Jr. in remarks June 3 at an Anti-Defamation League national meeting in Broomfield, Colorado. "'I have issues in my staff, and I have issues in my faculty."

Rosa, a Catholic, said the academy will enforce limits on proselytizing and on-duty expressions of beliefs. Rosa's comments were his first admission of deep-seated problems. The religious bias complaints followed newsmaking scandals a few years ago when accounts of sexual assaults on female cadets resulted in a shakeup of leadership.

The academy, located on the scenic outskirts of Colorado Springs, has drawn support from evangelical Christians who say that religious freedom of expression is being unduly attacked. An executive with the conservative Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, called the complaints and investigation "a witch hunt."

At a banquet in the city last month that was sponsored by the nationwide Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Bobby Bowden, football coach of the Florida State University, asked, "If you knew the cure for cancer, would you tell somebody or would you keep it a secret?"

But others say evangelicals in and out of uniform speak out too aggressively at the academy, creating an environment that Americans United described as "systematic and pervasive religious bias and intolerance at the highest levels of the academy command structure."

Rosa said in his ADL talk that he saw nothing wrong with a biblically themed e-mail message to thousands of fellow cadets sent May 31 by the top graduating senior, Nicholas Jurewicz. "He didn't say you must use this," Rosa said.

But Rosa did criticize his second in command, commandant Brigadier General Johnny Weida, for "inappropriate" actions in calling for personnel to observe the National Day of Prayer, promoted heavily by evangelical organizations, and for advising cadets that their first duty is to God.

Rosa said he also criticized air force football coach Fisher DeBerry for placing a banner reading "I am a member of Team Jesus Christ" in the athletic facilities last fall.

Most of the more than 50 complaints of religious bias since 2000 at the academy stem from "pure ignorance," Rosa said. But he also said that a new training program, titled Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People, was a "baby step" that will be followed by the same intensive and repeated training that followed the sexual-assault scandal, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.

The religious complaints surfaced gradually. A pastoral care consultant from Yale University Divinity School, asked to assess the academy's chaplaincy programs, said in a report last year that there were "stridently evangelical themes" in the chaplains" programs.

In an interview with Religion News Service, report author Kristen Leslie said similar themes are found throughout the academy. "There's one religious voice, the conservative evangelical Christian voice, that has decided that it has the right to lay claim to the environment," she says, "and it is able to do that by working with the academy power structure."

Academy chaplain Melinda Morton has been one of the most outspoken critics of the school's religious culture. She contends that her criticism of the academy is one of the reasons she received an early transfer to Japan--a charge being investigated by the air force's personnel office.

Cadets have been frequently subjected to evangelical overkill, says Casey Weinstein, a Jewish graduate of the academy. Citing one example to RNS, Weinstein, now a second lieutenant at Los Angeles Air Force Base, said an aggressive promotional campaign for Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ included publicity flyers placed on meal plates at one point in the spring of 2004.

As cadets ate, images from the film flashed on cafeteria screens used for official messages. The distribution of flyers ended only after Weinstein and a handful of fellow cadets complained about the campaign.

COPYRIGHT 2005 The Christian Century Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

I don't want Air Force officers entrusted with nuclear weapons deciding that "God" may order them to deploy those weapons.
It seems to me that this is obvious. The people who have the guts to defend this country and put their lives on the line generally grow up with the principals of duty to God, country, and family. Try to tear that from them and you'll have no air force.

[mrdiscreet]

Mr D:

I appreciate where you're coming from, but to understand this subject, you need to refer back to the primary author of the US Constitution, especially the man who penned the 1st amendment, Mr. James Madison.

Madison's other writings staunchly support a separation of church and state, which he clearly defines as non-intervention in government by ecclesiastical bodies. However, Madison also explained the 3 branches of gov't by quoting the book of Isaiah, and offered this quotation at his first inaugural address.
"...we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

How 'bout this quote:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Religious men and women in gov't is not the problem. It's the ignorant masses that believe the platitudes and lies of gov't officials, some of whom use religion (or opposition to it) to further their agenda.

Thanks for this; it is a good brush up for me. I had thought that Jefferson was the 1st amendment guy. But with a quick read, I see Madison and Jefferson had shared views, with roots back to the precursor Viriginia constitution. I would separate out political statements from what was actually enshrined in our governing documents. Going back to the Va constitution, interesting that the natural rights of man are emphaiszed, with very strong language against requiring religious conformity of any type.

I have no problem with officeholders being guided by Christian principles, as long as they do not use their office to impose Christianity on the poulation.

And I completely and emphatically agree with your bolded text. My biggest problem with politicians is those who seek the cover of public piety as a substitute for actual character.

[mrdiscreet]

It seems to me that this is obvious. The people who have the guts to defend this country and put their lives on the line generally grow up with the principals of duty to God, country, and family. Try to tear that from them and you'll have no air force.

I'm not sure we disagree at all, but ask this question:

Is it your position that a military officer could break his or her chain of command, and take affirmative action based upon a "higher order" from God?

Particularly given the harshness of life shouldered by our military, I am absolutely in favor of them finding comfort in religious belief, if that helps them bring order to their lives.

[Outta]

Thanks for this; it is a good brush up for me. I had thought that Jefferson was the 1st amendment guy. But with a quick read, I see Madison and Jefferson had shared views, with roots back to the precursor Viriginia constitution. I would separate out political statements from what was actually enshrined in our governing documents. Going back to the Va constitution, interesting that the natural rights of man are emphaiszed, with very strong language against requiring religious conformity of any type.

I have no problem with officeholders being guided by Christian principles, as long as they do not use their office to impose Christianity on the poulation.

And I completely and emphatically agree with your bolded text. My biggest problem with politicians is those who seek the cover of public piety as a substitute for actual character.
Well said. I do share your fear of zealots. I am a student of biblical history, and i cannot for the life of me agree with the people that see the prophesies of Revelation as anything but a commentary on the times of Rome's sack of Jerusalem. It frightens me that such a firm belief in these prophesies may lead us to actually causing their fulfillment.

However, my fear of fundamentalism in Iran far outweighs that of the few whackos we have here. The gov't of Iran (and I have to believe they are sincere) truly believe the end times are at hand, and it is their job to usher it in. We are a world of fools if we do not recognize their belief that the apocolypse is at hand. While I think Pres Bush believes some of his own rhetoric, I truly think that our presence in Iraq is all about Iran, and I hope that we keep that in perspective.

Now how come none of these presidential bone-head hopefuls are talking about energy independence. That's the only way to let the zealots fight their own battle in the middle east and to keep us out of it.

[mrdiscreet]

Now how come none of these presidential bone-head hopefuls are talking about energy independence. That's the only way to let the zealots fight their own battle in the middle east and to keep us out of it.

:55:55 We could own alternative energy technology if we dedicated our best in the world r&d resources to this field. Then we would own the energy monopoly instead of writing huge checks every day to fund terrorists.

[Outta]

I'm not sure we disagree at all, but ask this question:

Is it your position that a military officer could break his or her chain of command, and take affirmative action based upon a "higher order" from God?

Particularly given the harshness of life shouldered by our military, I am absolutely in favor of them finding comfort in religious belief, if that helps them bring order to their lives.
We don't disagree on this. The military is 100% about following orders. And it does very well at disciplining those who break ranks. i think this is a highly spun story. so my siding with Spare on this is only about the premises that the militiary or the gov't is overrun with religious fanatics. It's not. Our media just chooses to shine a flashlight on every occurence of religious fundamentalism here. Yet they portray the poor Islamists as guys who just wanna give peace a chance. Balderdash!

[Outta]

:55:55 We could own alternative energy technology if we dedicated our best in the world r&d resources to this field. Then we would own the energy monopoly instead of writing huge checks every day to fund terrorists.
I know. It kills me. We are squandering our most valuable talents. Pres. Bush paid some lip service to it at the State of the Union, but the challenge for America lacks any real substance. We need a true leader. It scares me that none of the candidates is out in front on this.

[spare_change]

Except that I have not seen the Constitution claimed as a Christian document in any serious constitutional scholarship I am aware of (i.e., law journals, legal scholarship). It is well settled that we are not a Christian nation as a matter of law (although heavily Christian in culture); perhaps this debate is raging within fringe Christian circles?

If memory serves, there are no references to God at all -- much less a Christian God -- in the Constitution; there is an express bar against establishment of religion (any religion), and religious tests are expressly barred to screen out office holders. An office holder may pledge by oath or affirmation service to office. The founding fathers certainly knew how to establish a Christian nation if they wished; in fact, it must have taken extraordinary focus not to do so at the time.


... fringe Christian circles? Only if you consider the Supreme Court a fringe Christian circle. There are have been over 13,000 cases adjudicated at the Circuit Court of Appeals level in the last 50 years or so regarding separation of church and state claims -- and a significant number at the Supreme Court level.

You misinterpret - I did not say that the debate is about whether the Constitution established a Christian government - I said that the dispute is about the influence, impact, and import of Christianity, and its role, in the application of the role of the federal government. Everyone is unanimous about the government not advocating, or demanding, participation in a preferred religion, but as you wander down the "separation" road, it becomes less clear, as the denial of permits to place a Christmas tree in the town square would attest.

Happy holidays.

[mrdiscreet]

We don't disagree on this. The military is 100% about following orders. And it does very well at disciplining those who break ranks. i think this is a highly spun story. so my siding with Spare on this is only about the premises that the militiary or the gov't is overrun with religious fanatics. It's not. Our media just chooses to shine a flashlight on every occurence of religious fundamentalism here. Yet they portray the poor Islamists as guys who just wanna give peace a chance. Balderdash!

That's good to hear. The problem for an outsider (civilian), is no visibility on how extensive discipline issues may be. Every organization has a tendency to close ranks and "take care of its own dirty laundry"; but it gets concerning when there is nothing said to acknowledge a problem could exist. In that vacuum, it is easy to fear the worst.

[mrdiscreet]

... fringe Christian circles? Only if you consider the Supreme Court a fringe Christian circle. There are have been over 13,000 cases adjudicated at the Circuit Court of Appeals level in the last 50 years or so regarding separation of church and state claims -- and a significant number at the Supreme Court level.

You misinterpret - I did not say that the debate is about whether the Constitution established a Christian government - I said that the dispute is about the influence, impact, and import of Christianity, and its role, in the application of the role of the federal government. Everyone is unanimous about the government not advocating, or demanding, participation in a preferred religion, but as you wander down the "separation" road, it becomes less clear, as the denial of permits to place a Christmas tree in the town square would attest.

Happy holidays.

Perhaps I did misinterpret: I thought the argument was that the Constitution did not forbid favoritism of Christianity, just favoritism of any sect within Christianity. That would clearly be an incorrect staement of settled law on separation of church and state.

Merry Christmas!

[Outta]

That's good to hear. The problem for an outsider (civilian), is no visibility on how extensive discipline issues may be. Every organization has a tendency to close ranks and "take care of its own dirty laundry"; but it gets concerning when there is nothing said to acknowledge a problem could exist. In that vacuum, it is easy to fear the worst.
Well. This is where I respect Spare's opinion. I chose to serve, but was rejected for medical reasons. Spare is a true patriot, and an intelligent one, and I enjoy being reminded by him what a fabulous country we have, especially the fact that we can freely express these thoughts without fear of reprise.

I fly a lot. I see soldiers all the time. They tell such a different story than what we hear on the news. This is a fine, professional military, whose fundamental beliefs in the exportation of freedom is a beautiful thing.

Keep your healthy skeptism, man. Always question authority. Just don't fall for the rhetoric of an anti-Christian media.

[spare_change]

Well. This is where I respect Spare's opinion. I chose to serve, but was rejected for medical reasons. Spare is a true patriot, and an intelligent one, and I enjoy being reminded by him what a fabulous country we have, especially the fact that we can freely express these thoughts without fear of reprise.

I fly a lot. I see soldiers all the time. They tell such a different story than what we hear on the news. This is a fine, professional military, whose fundamental beliefs in the exportation of freedom is a beautiful thing.

Keep your healthy skeptism, man. Always question authority. Just don't fall for the rhetoric of an anti-Christian media.

Thanks for the kind words, sir.

Skepticism is healthy - paranoia is not.

There is an old saying - "There are no atheists in a foxhole." It couldn't be more true - those who have been there surely believe in a higher being, how else to explain a bullet missing by inches, when a left turn means you live and your buddy dies because he turned right (his name was Claude DiGirolamo, from Camden, NJ - you'll see his name on the Wall). How else to explain shrapnel that goes clean thru you, but doesn't do any significant damage on the way through? How else to explain an IED exploding 15 feet away, sending thousands of nails and ball bearings flying your way, only to be unscratched when the noise stopped? How else to explain a SAM-damaged OV-10 hurtling to the ground, slamming into it at 200 mph and walking away? How else to explain wandering lost, dehydrated, in massive jungle, only to walk upon the only friendly outpost within 50 klicks. Math, luck, and pure chance pale in comparison when confronted with the reality.

My admiration, and my love, for the man in uniform is unbridled. He's willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, while most are unwilling to make ANY sacrifice at all.

[p.a]

Well. This is where I respect Spare's opinion. I chose to serve, but was rejected for medical reasons. Spare is a true patriot, and an intelligent one, and I enjoy being reminded by him what a fabulous country we have, especially the fact that we can freely express these thoughts without fear of reprise.

I fly a lot. I see soldiers all the time. They tell such a different story than what we hear on the news. This is a fine, professional military, whose fundamental beliefs in the exportation of freedom is a beautiful thing.

Keep your healthy skeptism, man. Always question authority. Just don't fall for the rhetoric of an anti-Christian media.

My nephew is a Iraq war survivor. He came home with all his limbs but his psyhi took a hit. He also came home with a different story than the all is good over there Fox news type media. And then there's that group of vets who have been there and oppose this war. Now I'm not quite sure what you mean by " true patriot ". Any one who loves this country and is willing to openly criticize the leadership for bad judgment is a patriot. You don't have to be in the military for that. What is a " True Christian "? There are some religious believers that would say that a true Christian would not be caught dead in this forum.
No one who says there against this war is anti troop and I really get tired of people ( with political agenda's ) saying that. Freedom is a beautiful thing but it's not the militarizes job to export it, implement it, or preach it. Thats not what they do. That is the job of governments and there law makers. You invite people to believe what you believe, you don't force it on them.

We do live in a fabulous country that allows us the right to speak our minds but not necessarily without reprise. People who disagree with this war have been called cowards, non supporters of the troops, on the side of the terrorist, and even treasonous. And on the other side warmongers, Zionist, etc........... We wont be truly free until we can debate, dicuss, and disagree without having to be painted with this broad brush.

[mrdiscreet]

Skepticism is healthy - paranoia is not.

Not referring to my posts, I hope.

It is not paranoid to be concerned about military discipline when an organization -- the Military Ministry -- exists whose express goal is to convert every member of the military (with emphasis on officers) to a dominionist, end-of-the-world theology; whose motto is "government paid missionaries". Dominionists in control of nuclear weapons in fact would have the means at hand to cause the "end of times" they believe are nigh.

Wacko stuff? For sure, but the wackos do need to be monitored and assessed as to how far they may take their beliefs.

It is not paranoid to be concerned about lax security on nuclear weapons, when the official incident report does not even address the question of whether apparent authority within the chain-of-command was breached in the matter.

Seem insane? I agree. But it is a fact that Rapture theology exists within our military, and I am not seeing any comfort that Rapture believers are even acknowledging that God is not the final arbiter of their chain-of-command on deploying weapons, however they may interpret God's signs, or that their influence is of concern to military leadership.
I'd love to hear assurance on those points.

If Spare is the proxy voice for the state of militrary discipline, I'd welcome a response on the merits: do dominionists in the military accept that God cannot issue orders to deploy weapons above and beyond the military chain of command?

I ask, because in several posts and in Military Ministry materials, duty to God is emphasized above duty to country, and that could be quite volatile within the dominionist theology.

[mrdiscreet]

... On whether dominionists within our military see their ultimate dutyas defending the Constitution (including the establishment of religion) or the Bible.

I must say, the more I read about this, the more alarming, and less isolated-incident, it seems.

So now the Pentagon comes close to shipping out Crusade packs to our soldiers in Iraq? Accepting that this program got shut down, how did it ever even see the light of day within the Pentagon?

Not so fast, Christian soldiers

The Pentagon has a disturbing relationship with private evangelical groups.

By Michael L. Weinstein and Reza Aslan
Wednesday August 22, 2007 – LA Times OP-Ed

Maybe what the war in Iraq needs is not more troops but more religion. At least that's the message the Department of Defense seems to be sending.

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade."

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word "crusade" and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

In the end, the Defense Department realized the folly of participating in any Operation Straight Up crusade. But the episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.

[spare_change]

Not referring to my posts, I hope.

It is not paranoid to be concerned about military discipline when an organization -- the Military Ministry -- exists whose express goal is to convert every member of the military (with emphasis on officers) to a dominionist, end-of-the-world theology; whose motto is "government paid missionaries". Dominionists in control of nuclear weapons in fact would have the means at hand to cause the "end of times" they believe are nigh.

Wacko stuff? For sure, but the wackos do need to be monitored and assessed as to how far they may take their beliefs.

It is not paranoid to be concerned about lax security on nuclear weapons, when the official incident report does not even address the question of whether apparent authority within the chain-of-command was breached in the matter.

Seem insane? I agree. But it is a fact that Rapture theology exists within our military, and I am not seeing any comfort that Rapture believers are even acknowledging that God is not the final arbiter of their chain-of-command on deploying weapons, however they may interpret God's signs, or that their influence is of concern to military leadership.
I'd love to hear assurance on those points.

If Spare is the proxy voice for the state of militrary discipline, I'd welcome a response on the merits: do dominionists in the military accept that God cannot issue orders to deploy weapons above and beyond the military chain of command?

I ask, because in several posts and in Military Ministry materials, duty to God is emphasized above duty to country, and that could be quite volatile within the dominionist theology.


You know -- I've taken a couple days trying to figure out how best to lay this concern to rest. In the end, I've decided that the best way is to just tell it like it is ---

The Uniformed Code of Military Justice does not require a soldier to obey a command that violates his personal principles. In other words, he is responsible to determine the propriety, within his moral value set, of any command he is given. We would not expect, for example, a soldier to obey an order to machine gun unarmed schoolchildren, and would hold him responsible for his actions. Conversely, if he were to claim that cleaning garbage cans was against he moral value set, he would be held responsible for that, as well.

The military will tell you that you have a duty to God and Country - in that order. (I could give you the history of that approach, but suffice it to say it really got its impetus following My Lai and other actions during the Viet Nam war). The military does not build mindless killing automatons who obey a command without reflection. Instead, it builds thoughtful, considered, and reasoned soldiers who make judgments based on their moral values.

The military also tries to instill a moral value set - though not within a religious context. But, the reality is that as each soldier begins to build his personal value set, many are led to religion. It is a heavy load to know that you may have to kill people, or drop a bomb that will kill hundreds, or order your best friend into a position in which he probably will be killed. This is not taken on easily, and many wrestle with the weight of those decisions. Seeking guidance, and direction, is a natural artifact of that load.

It is this very weight, this very struggle, that serves as protection against your fears. Each and every decision is weighed against the moral value set of the individual receiving the order. Your concern is predicated on a lack of understanding of the professionalism, intelligence, and commitment of our soldiers.

Each and every soldier is kept constantly apprised of the military and political situation. Any one of those soldiers is privy to more information, and is better schooled, than any of our media. So, when they receive an order, they are able to put it into proper context. An order not consistent with the overall goals, the overall mission, or the circumstances within his area of operations, will be stridently questioned. This is the difference between the US military and all the militaries of the past -- this diffusion of authority and the creation of the most intelligent and well informed armies in history. The US military is not a single person, or small group, plotting and planning, and then passing down orders to mindless machines. Each decision is reviewed, dissected, and validated by the people BELOW the order giver. Every command is monitored BEFORE and AFTER its execution (review BELOW is done before execution of the command - review ABOVE is done after execution of the command).

In addition, the military does an excellent job of filtering its command candidates. Think of it as an upside down funnel - the higher you go, the fewer positions there are. The fewer the positions, the greater the requirements. For example, in 2006, there were 11,542 O-6s (Colonels in AF and Army, Captains in the Navy) competing for 444 O-7 positions (well, actually probably more like 5 positions - cuz the others were already filled). The idea that someone who didn't meet the highest standards of loyalty and judgment ascending to one of those positions is inconceivable.

So, you can sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that those nasty believers in God will not be taking over the military any time soon. But, if in the absolutely inconceivable possibility that it could somehow happen, keep in mind that the military is responsive to civilian leadership. The controls are in place to prevent any significant military action without civilian approval.

Back to the original premise - two unrelated incidents (movement of nuclear weapons and proselytizing at AFA) that led to your concern. While the details are not forthcoming, and never will be (because of classified information), the nuclear weapons incident resulted in 1) changes in procedures, and 2) changes in personnel that, it is believed will prevent the mistake from ever happening again (we also know, though, that soldiers can always find new and innovative ways to fuck things up -- so we can only remain vigilant and ready to repair the NEW process). As for the AFA, it resulted in 1) expenditure of millions of dollars for a study, 2) heightened sensitivity to the politically correct issue, 3) changes in process and establishment of new positions in order to collect the information to respond to any accusations of that nature again.

Fear not - all is well, and we are ever vigilant.

[spare_change]

... On whether dominionists within our military see their ultimate dutyas defending the Constitution (including the establishment of religion) or the Bible.

I must say, the more I read about this, the more alarming, and less isolated-incident, it seems.

So now the Pentagon comes close to shipping out Crusade packs to our soldiers in Iraq? Accepting that this program got shut down, how did it ever even see the light of day within the Pentagon?

Not so fast, Christian soldiers

The Pentagon has a disturbing relationship with private evangelical groups.

By Michael L. Weinstein and Reza Aslan
Wednesday August 22, 2007 – LA Times OP-Ed

Maybe what the war in Iraq needs is not more troops but more religion. At least that's the message the Department of Defense seems to be sending.

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade."

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word "crusade" and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

In the end, the Defense Department realized the folly of participating in any Operation Straight Up crusade. But the episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.

America Supports You is a DOD program where individuals, groups, and businesses can come together to show their support for American troops. Many businesses, including mine, have offered discounts, products, and incentives in recognition of the sacrifices of the troops and their families. I strongly encourage all to go to their website, http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/index.aspx, and express your support - if only with a text message. I have seen soldiers in Anbar, in a tent where it was about 400 degrees (I think!!), standing around a computer terminal reading messages from strangers. You could see their mood being lifted. Such a little amount of your time -- and such a big difference for them.

Because the the DOD is a government entity, they can not pass judgment on who may, or may not, be involved in America Supports You, particularly in the area of religion, because it would be perceived that they were violating "separation of church and state". For example, if they said that the Catholic Church could participate, and the Methodist Church couldn't, the hue and cry would linger for years. So, when Operation Straight Up claimed itself a religious organization, DOD's hands were tied.

It was only when the civilian community objected, that action could be taken. By the way, the decision to remove Operation Straight Up didn't come from DOD - it came from the White House. That decision has resulted in a lawsuit that the WH violated the First Amendment (separation of church and state) which is yet to be resolved. (I admit I haven't' actively followed it, because it undoubtedly will die without seeing the light of day)

[tom33]

what ever


these threads are for discussion ,not for immature responses ..please refrain from comments like these as they wil be edited ...

[spare_change]

what ever.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................


If you have an input (we don't even require it to be intelligent - see above), please make it. If you don't, then I recommend you remain quiet and allow those who do to discuss the issue.

[p.a]

what ever.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................

Thats ok Tom33. I understand your frustration and sometimes 2 words say it all.
Continue to post whatever you feel. There is no rule that I've read that states how long your comments can be. Nor is there an appointed/elected overseer in this forum.

Lets play nice and respect everyones opinion Please.:55

actually your wrong ...there are overseers in every thread ,Moderators ...and we have been appointed by the owner of the site ,any post deemed inappropriate will be edited ...
Tom33 has had his posts edited ......

[mrdiscreet]

You know -- I've taken a couple days trying to figure out how best to lay this concern to rest. In the end, I've decided that the best way is to just tell it like it is ---

The Uniformed Code of Military Justice does not require a soldier to obey a command that violates his personal principles. In other words, he is responsible to determine the propriety, within his moral value set, of any command he is given. We would not expect, for example, a soldier to obey an order to machine gun unarmed schoolchildren, and would hold him responsible for his actions. Conversely, if he were to claim that cleaning garbage cans was against he moral value set, he would be held responsible for that, as well.

The military will tell you that you have a duty to God and Country - in that order. (I could give you the history of that approach, but suffice it to say it really got its impetus following My Lai and other actions during the Viet Nam war). The military does not build mindless killing automatons who obey a command without reflection. Instead, it builds thoughtful, considered, and reasoned soldiers who make judgments based on their moral values.

The military also tries to instill a moral value set - though not within a religious context. But, the reality is that as each soldier begins to build his personal value set, many are led to religion. It is a heavy load to know that you may have to kill people, or drop a bomb that will kill hundreds, or order your best friend into a position in which he probably will be killed. This is not taken on easily, and many wrestle with the weight of those decisions. Seeking guidance, and direction, is a natural artifact of that load.

It is this very weight, this very struggle, that serves as protection against your fears. Each and every decision is weighed against the moral value set of the individual receiving the order. Your concern is predicated on a lack of understanding of the professionalism, intelligence, and commitment of our soldiers.

Each and every soldier is kept constantly apprised of the military and political situation. Any one of those soldiers is privy to more information, and is better schooled, than any of our media. So, when they receive an order, they are able to put it into proper context. An order not consistent with the overall goals, the overall mission, or the circumstances within his area of operations, will be stridently questioned. This is the difference between the US military and all the militaries of the past -- this diffusion of authority and the creation of the most intelligent and well informed armies in history. The US military is not a single person, or small group, plotting and planning, and then passing down orders to mindless machines. Each decision is reviewed, dissected, and validated by the people BELOW the order giver. Every command is monitored BEFORE and AFTER its execution (review BELOW is done before execution of the command - review ABOVE is done after execution of the command).

In addition, the military does an excellent job of filtering its command candidates. Think of it as an upside down funnel - the higher you go, the fewer positions there are. The fewer the positions, the greater the requirements. For example, in 2006, there were 11,542 O-6s (Colonels in AF and Army, Captains in the Navy) competing for 444 O-7 positions (well, actually probably more like 5 positions - cuz the others were already filled). The idea that someone who didn't meet the highest standards of loyalty and judgment ascending to one of those positions is inconceivable.

So, you can sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that those nasty believers in God will not be taking over the military any time soon. But, if in the absolutely inconceivable possibility that it could somehow happen, keep in mind that the military is responsive to civilian leadership. The controls are in place to prevent any significant military action without civilian approval.

Back to the original premise - two unrelated incidents (movement of nuclear weapons and proselytizing at AFA) that led to your concern. While the details are not forthcoming, and never will be (because of classified information), the nuclear weapons incident resulted in 1) changes in procedures, and 2) changes in personnel that, it is believed will prevent the mistake from ever happening again (we also know, though, that soldiers can always find new and innovative ways to fuck things up -- so we can only remain vigilant and ready to repair the NEW process). As for the AFA, it resulted in 1) expenditure of millions of dollars for a study, 2) heightened sensitivity to the politically correct issue, 3) changes in process and establishment of new positions in order to collect the information to respond to any accusations of that nature again.

Fear not - all is well, and we are ever vigilant.

Thank you for a thoughtful response; it is helpful for the most part. Am I correct that the duty to God above Country refers to standing down from orders, and excludes hearing affirmative "orders" to initiate hostile action from God? That is the heart of my concern; I am very comfortable with -- and encourage -- screening orders against fundamental moral values.

The "nasty believers in God" line was uncalled for. My posts have gone to two elements: (1) concern that freedom of religion within the military be protected from those who would use official office to evangelize and (2) in the specific case of dominionists (i.e., a tiny fraction of Christians), inquiring how far they may feel their "higher calling" may go while entrusted with highly destructive weaponry. Given the dominionists' own statements, that is a fair inquiry.

[spare_change]

Thank you for a thoughtful response; it is helpful for the most part. Am I correct that the duty to God above Country refers to standing down from orders, and excludes hearing affirmative "orders" to initiate hostile action from God? That is the heart of my concern; I am very comfortable with -- and encourage -- screening orders against fundamental moral values.

The "nasty believers in God" line was uncalled for. My posts have gone to two elements: (1) concern that freedom of religion within the military be protected from those who would use official office to evangelize and (2) in the specific case of dominionists (i.e., a tiny fraction of Christians), inquiring how far they may feel their "higher calling" may go while entrusted with highly destructive weaponry. Given the dominionists' own statements, that is a fair inquiry.

Initiation of orders is impossible from a single source -- the safeguards, crosschecks, and verification procedures in place make a rogue scenario inconceivable. In fairness, you could, of course, paint a conspiracy scenario in which just the right people in the just the right positions acting in just the right manner could initiate bogus orders. But, those numbers would be in the hundreds, probably thousands, and be a massively intricate dance to pull it off. The "Seven Days in May" scenario has been carefully planned against.

As for the "nasty believers" comment -- you're right -- I apologize. Sometimes, you set them up and you just have to pull the trigger. It was out of line.

[mrdiscreet]

Initiation of orders is impossible from a single source -- the safeguards, crosschecks, and verification procedures in place make a rogue scenario inconceivable. In fairness, you could, of course, paint a conspiracy scenario in which just the right people in the just the right positions acting in just the right manner could initiate bogus orders. But, those numbers would be in the hundreds, probably thousands, and be a massively intricate dance to pull it off. The "Seven Days in May" scenario has been carefully planned against.

As for the "nasty believers" comment -- you're right -- I apologize. Sometimes, you set them up and you just have to pull the trigger. It was out of line.

That ius exactly the assurance I have been hoping to hear. Thank you.

I wonder if some of those who follow our posts with bemusement/amusement must be amazed (or disappointed in the lack of a fight), disbelieving our civil discourse. Sorry to disappoint, folks!

Having checked out the ASY website, I can see how it would be difficult for DOD to monitor. I'm curious how freely care packages can be sent to troops; I would have thought the DOD would have some pretty strict screening processes on what troops are allowed to receive just as a matter of general discipline?

[spare_change]

That ius exactly the assurance I have been hoping to hear. Thank you.

I wonder if some of those who follow our posts with bemusement/amusement must be amazed (or disappointed in the lack of a fight), disbelieving our civil discourse. Sorry to disappoint, folks!

Having checked out the ASY website, I can see how it would be difficult for DOD to monitor. I'm curious how freely care packages can be sent to troops; I would have thought the DOD would have some pretty strict screening processes on what troops are allowed to receive just as a matter of general discipline?

I'm sure they're very strict -- but screening religious materials certainly falls outside the purview of the government. I suspect you would have more trouble shipping a thousand Hustler magazines than you would shipping controversial religious material - that would be a big "hands off"!!!

[mrdiscreet]

I'm sure they're very strict -- but screening religious materials certainly falls outside the purview of the government. I suspect you would have more trouble shipping a thousand Hustler magazines than you would shipping controversial religious material - that would be a big "hands off"!!!

An interesting response in that Hustler is no less protected by 1st amendment rights than religious materials. If there is a national security reason to screen Hustlers from the Iraq theatre due to fears of inflaming the local culture, then there should be no less concern about prosyletizing materials.

Military Ministry calims it is piumping out 20,000 packages a month, with over 1.5 million distributed since 9/11. The math says that is more bibles than soldiers, so where are all those bibles going?

[spare_change]

Lol

[mrdiscreet]

Lol

I missed the joke?

[mrdiscreet]

Bible Belt missionaries set out on a 'war for souls' in Iraq


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 27/12/2003



American Christian missionaries have declared a "war for souls" in Iraq, telling supporters that the formal end of the US-led occupation next June will close an historic "window of opportunity".

Organising in secrecy, and emphasising their humanitarian aid work, Christian groups are pouring into the country, which is 97 per cent Muslim, bearing Arabic Bibles, videos and religious tracts designed to "save" Muslims from their "false" religion.

The International Mission Board, the missionary arm of the Southern Baptists, is one of those leading the charge.

John Brady, the IMB's head for the Middle East and North Africa, this month appealed to the 16 million members of his church, the largest Protestant denomination in America.

"Southern Baptists have prayed for years that Iraq would somehow be opened to the gospel," his appeal began. That "open door" for Christians may soon close.

"Southern Baptists must understand that there is a war for souls under way in Iraq," his bulletin added, listing Islamic leaders and "pseudo-Christian" groups also flooding Iraq as his chief rivals.

The missionaries are mainly evangelicals who reject talk of Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God.

Jerry Vines, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, has described the Prophet Mohammed as a "demon-obsessed paedophile". Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and the head of Samaritan's Purse, a big donor to Iraq, has described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion".

The missionaries pose a dilemma for President George W Bush. He has reached out to Muslims since September 11, shrugging off criticism from evangelicals to describe Islam as "peaceful". But Christian conservatives are also a key Bush constituency: Franklin Graham delivered the invocation prayer at his presidential inauguration.

The US Agency for International Development has said that the government cannot rein in private charities. "Imagine what the US Congress would say to us," said a spokesman in April.

Jon Hanna, an evangelical from Ohio who has recently returned from Iraq, applied for a new passport to travel there, describing himself as a humanitarian worker. "I was worried the US authorities might try to stop us, might be worried we were going to start a riot with our Bibles."

In Baghdad last month Mr Hanna met two other American missionary teams. One, from Indiana, had shipped in 1.3 million Christian tracts. "A US passport is all you need to get in, until the new Iraqi government takes over. What we thought was a two-year window, originally, has narrowed down to a six month window," said Mr Hanna, an evangelical minister and editor of Connection Magazine, a Christian newspaper in Ohio.

He describes Islam as "false". He cited St John's Gospel, saying: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist."

Mr Hanna concluded: "The Muslim religion is an antichrist religion." Later Mr Hanna asked to retract that choice of words. "Without the reader hearing my voice and looking into my eyes as I made that statement, it would be easy for certain readers to feel personally attacked and be offended," Mr Hanna wrote by email. "That would be unfruitful."

He rejected the suggestion that aid work was a "cover" for missionary work, preferring to call it a "conduit for sharing the gospel of Jesus. Christians are commanded to minister to the hungry, but also to the hunger of the spirit. It can't be separated," he said.

In public, the largest groups put the emphasis on their delivery of food parcels and their medical work. However, their internal fund-raising materials emphasise mission work. One IMB bulletin reported aid workers handing out copies of the New Testament and praying with Muslim recipients. Another bulletin said Iraqis understood "who was bringing the food . . . it was the Christians from America."

Southern Baptists from North Carolina visited Iraq in October to help hand out 45,000 boxes of donated food. One of the team, Jim Walker, told IMB's Urgent News bulletin that he met village children "starved of attention and I could tell some of them have not eaten well. But their biggest need is to know the love of Christ."

Mr Hanna said he encountered friendly curiosity, with noisy crowds gathering to take his group's tracts. "Maybe 10 per cent were hostile." He was one of 21 on his mission including Jackie Cone, 72, a Pentecostalist grandmother from Ohio who said God had told her to join a second mission planned for next year. "I sensed Him telling me to come back in January," she said.

Mrs Cone is confident she made converts in Baghdad. In her hotel she met a Muslim woman on crutches with a leg operation due that day. Mrs Cone knelt on the lobby floor and prayed that surgery would not be required.

"I saw her that evening and she said God had healed her, and she hadn't needed the surgery. She didn't say Allah, she pointed to Heaven and gave God the glory," she said.

Mrs Cone led the Kurdish woman and her brother in prayer, asking Jesus into their hearts. "I'd given them a Bible and a Jesus video in Arabic. I think they think of themselves as Christians now," she said. "They have the Bible and I hope they will grow in grace."

Muslims are hard converts, American missionaries admit. The large organisations have experts trained in refuting Muslim teachings that Jesus is just another prophet.

Before going to Iraq, Mr Hanna studied Christian training manuals and attended a seminar for missionaries to the Arab world.

Mr Hanna concedes his new Iraqi friends were possibly drawn by the novelty of meeting Americans. "But you don't discount that, you use it as an opportunity to tell them about Jesus. Last time we only took 8,000 Arabic Bibles to Iraq. In future missions the goal is one million."

[PunkyBob]

He describes Islam as "false". He cited St John's Gospel, saying: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist."

The world is one scary-assed place, isn't it?

[spare_change]

Bible Belt missionaries set out on a 'war for souls' in Iraq


Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 27/12/2003



American Christian missionaries have declared a "war for souls" in Iraq, telling supporters that the formal end of the US-led occupation next June will close an historic "window of opportunity".

Mr Hanna concedes his new Iraqi friends were possibly drawn by the novelty of meeting Americans. "But you don't discount that, you use it as an opportunity to tell them about Jesus. Last time we only took 8,000 Arabic Bibles to Iraq. In future missions the goal is one million."

1) These are not soldiers -- these are civilians, acting of their own accord.

2) They are ministering, crusading, converting - whatever word you choose to use. Is that a problem?

3) You choose to ignore the same actions here? Or, are you just not aware of the Muslim recruitment efforts, particularly in the black communities?

[mrdiscreet]

The world is one scary-assed place, isn't it?

Yes, particularly when the liars are our military leaders, hiding the true level of injuries our troops are sustaining:

20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tally

By Gregg Zoroya (http://www.usatoday.com/community/tags/reporter.aspx?id=233), USA TODAY

At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

HIDDEN WOUNDS: Marine didn't recognize signs of brain injury (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-11-22-tbiinsinide_N.htm)
The number of brain-injury cases were tabulated from records kept by the VA and four military bases that house units that have served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One base released its count of brain injuries at a medical conference. The others provided their records at the request of USA TODAY, in some cases only after a Freedom of Information Act filing was submitted.

USA TODAY ARCHIVES: Brain injuries from war worse than thought (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-23-traumatic-brain-injuries_N.htm)
The data came from:

• Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center in Germany, where troops evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injury, illness or wounds are brought before going home. Since May 2006, more than 2,300 soldiers screened positive for brain injury, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw says.

• Fort Hood, Texas, home of the 4th Infantry Division, which returned from a second Iraq combat tour late last year. At least 2,700 soldiers suffered a combat brain injury, Lt. Col. Steve Stover says.

• Fort Carson, Colo., where more than 2,100 soldiers screened were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to remarks by Army Col. Heidi Terrio before a brain injury association seminar.

• Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where 1,737 Marines were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to Navy Cmdr. Martin Holland, a neurosurgeon with the Naval Medical Center San Diego.

• VA hospitals, where Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been screened for combat brain injuries since April. The VA found about 20% of 61,285 surveyed — or 11,804 veterans — with signs of brain injury, spokeswoman Alison Aikele says. VA doctors say more evaluation is necessary before a true diagnosis of brain injury can be confirmed in all these cases, Aikele says.

Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon.

"We are working to do a better job of reflecting accurate data in the official casualty table," Labutta says.

Most of the new cases involve mild or moderate brain injuries, commonly from exposure to blasts.

More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.

"I am wary that the number of brain-injured troops far exceeds the total number reported injured," he says.

About 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq, where traumatic brain injury can occur despite heavy body armor worn by troops.

[mrdiscreet]

1) These are not soldiers -- these are civilians, acting of their own accord.

2) They are ministering, crusading, converting - whatever word you choose to use. Is that a problem?

3) You choose to ignore the same actions here? Or, are you just not aware of the Muslim recruitment efforts, particularly in the black communities?

Yes, it is a problem, when we have pried open the door through US military force. I am quite confident Iraqi, or Irani, or Saudi govts would not issue visas for these missionaries.

I'm also quite confident thaere are not many US visa being handed out to Iraqis to come sell Islam in Kansas. Quite a difference comparing domestic free speech to missionaries riding in on the wings of invasion.

[spare_change]

Yes, it is a problem, when we have pried open the door through US military force. I am quite confident Iraqi, or Irani, or Saudi govts would not issue visas for these missionaries.

I'm also quite confident thaere are not many US visa being handed out to Iraqis to come sell Islam in Kansas. Quite a difference comparing domestic free speech to missionaries riding in on the wings of invasion.


Sorry -- you're exactly wrong.

These missionaries are not affiliated with the military. They are going to Iraq under their own auspices, and in fact, are issued visas.

I would suggest that you take the time to do some research into the Muslim recruitment (protletyzing) in the US -- I think you'll be surprised.

[oldandnaked]

That's obtuse, and you know it -- I didn't ask who his office answered to -- I asked who the man answered to -- when he makes recommendations, or implements direction, to whom does he look? What is his moral compass? How does he determine right and wrong?

So you're saying anyone that is athesist or agnostic has no conception of what is right or wrong? One must have religious conviction to comprehend good and evil? Just asking.

[spare_change]

So you're saying anyone that is athesist or agnostic has no conception of what is right or wrong? One must have religious conviction to comprehend good and evil? Just asking.

Not at all -- but I do want to know what his moral underpinning might be. As we all know, the fact that you claim allegiance to a church does not make you a saint, nor does rejection of a church make you a sinner. But, I think it is fair to say that a person who claims a church is selecting a pre-set list of values. Once you know that, then you can determine whether he really follows that list. With an atheist, you have to determine what his purported values are before you can decide if he follows them.

Think of it as giving me a checklist against which to evaluate his morals, because you can be darn sure that is something that i WILL be evaluating.

[oldandnaked]

Not at all -- but I do want to know what his moral underpinning might be. As we all know, the fact that you claim allegiance to a church does not make you a saint, nor does rejection of a church make you a sinner. But, I think it is fair to say that a person who claims a church is selecting a pre-set list of values. Once you know that, then you can determine whether he really follows that list. With an atheist, you have to determine what his purported values are before you can decide if he follows them.

Think of it as giving me a checklist against which to evaluate his morals, because you can be darn sure that is something that i WILL be evaluating.

Fair answer, thank you.

[mrdiscreet]

Sorry -- you're exactly wrong.

These missionaries are not affiliated with the military. They are going to Iraq under their own auspices, and in fact, are issued visas.

I would suggest that you take the time to do some research into the Muslim recruitment (protletyzing) in the US -- I think you'll be surprised.

You are saying Iraq issues visas for declared missionaries? From what I have gathered, those that went did so under under false swearing, claiming humanitarian aid or business purpose visas. Is Christian proselytizing now legal in Iraq? From what I read, native Christianity has historically been tolerated, but outside missionaries and proselytizing strictly forbidden. Why would that be allowed if converting is a death sentence for muslims?

[spare_change]

You are saying Iraq issues visas for declared missionaries? From what I have gathered, those that went did so under under false swearing, claiming humanitarian aid or business purpose visas. Is Christian proselytizing now legal in Iraq? From what I read, native Christianity has historically been tolerated, but outside missionaries and proselytizing strictly forbidden. Why would that be allowed if converting is a death sentence for muslims?

Since I don't have access to their visa applications, I really don't know what they used as justification. My point was your off-handed connection of them to the military was inappropriate - they are not sponsored, nor assisted, by the military. Their entry is between them and the Iraqi government.

[mrdiscreet]

Since I don't have access to their visa applications, I really don't know what they used as justification. My point was your off-handed connection of them to the military was inappropriate - they are not sponsored, nor assisted, by the military. Their entry is between them and the Iraqi government.

Except that they were given free reign when the CPA ran the show, and all they needed to show was a US passport.

[mrdiscreet]

White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence

By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 11:12AM
So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-1.html) of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/images/20071126-1_d-0063-2-515h.html).

Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.

-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces. -- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004771.php) or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004632.php) strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_problem_with_militias) -- as a recipe for a future coup.

The White House is also taking steps to argue that there's nothing unusual about what it intends for Iraq. Here's that fact sheet again:

The Declaration Sets The U.S. And Iraq On A Path Toward Negotiating Agreements That Are Common Throughout The World The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries.

Not stated, of course, is that Iraq would represent a military commitment opposed by most of the American people (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/08/poll_opposition_to_iraq_war_at_high/8796/). Nor that it would represent codifying an unpopular war into an unpopular, indefinite war. Nor even what that commitment would entail. Here's the "principle" behind future U.S.-Iraq security ties:

To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory. In other words, we're staying in Iraq to defend Nouri al-Maliki against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[tom33]

what ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[tom33]

******duplicate post

[mrdiscreet]

The Mystery of Minot: Loose nukes and a cluster of dead airmen raise troubling questions

by Dave Lindorff
This article appeared initially in the Oct. 22, 2007 issue of American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/index1.html) magazine.



The American Conservative has discovered that to date, more than a month after the incident, Pentagon investigators have completely ignored a peculiar cluster of six deaths, during the weeks immediately preceding and following the flight, of personnel at the two Air Force bases involved in the incident and Air Force Commando Operations headquarters. The operative assumption of the investigations appears to be that an Air Force decision to store nuclear, conventional, and dummy warheads in the same bunker and one mistake by weapons handlers initiated a chain of errors and oversights that led to the flight.

On Sept. 23, the Washington Post, in a story based upon interviews with military officials, many of them unidentified, suggested that the first known case of nuclear warheads leaving a weapons-storage area improperly was the result of two mistakes. The first, the article suggested, was a decision by the Air Force to permit the storing of nuclear weapons in the same highly secure and constantly guarded sod-covered bunkers—known as “igloos”—as non-nuclear weapons and dummy warheads (something that had never been allowed in the past). The second was some as yet unidentified mistake by weapons handlers at Minot to mount six nuclear warheads onto six of the 12 Advanced Cruise Missiles that had been slated to be flown to Barksdale AFB for destruction. Those missiles and the six others, part of a group of 400 such missiles slated for retirement and disassembly, should have been fitted with dummy warheads also. The Post article quotes military sources as saying that once the mistake was made, a cascade of errors followed as weapons handlers, ground crews, and the B-52 crew dkipped all nuclear protocols, assuming they were dealing with dummy warheads.

Various experts familiar with nuclear-weapons-handling protocols express astonishment at what happened on Aug. 29 and 30. After all, over the course of more than six decades, the protocols for handling nuclear arms have called for at least two people at every step, with paper trails, bar codes, and real-time computer tracking of every warhead in the arsenal. Nothing like this has been known to have happened before. Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, who served as US Strategic Command chief from 1996 to 1998, told the Post, “I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and am not aware of any incident more disturbing.” Philip Coyle, a senior advisor at the Center for Defense Information who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, calls the iincident “astonishing” and “unbelievable.” He says, “This wasn’t just a mistake. I’ve counted, and at least 20 things had to have gone wrong for this to have occurred.”

Bruce Blair, a former Air Force nuclear launch officer who is now president of the World Security Institute, says that the explanation of the incident as laid out in the Washington Post, and in the limited statements from the Air Force and Department of Defense, which call it a “mistake,” are “incomplete.” He notes that no mention has been made as to whether the nukes in question, which had been pre-mounted on a pylon for attachment to the B-52 wing, had their PAL (permiswsion action link) codes unlocked to make them operational, or whether a system on board the plane that would ordinarily prevent an unauthorized launch had been activated. “For all we know, these missiles could have been fully operational,” he says.

The Air Force and Department of Defense are refusing to answer any questions about such matters.

[spare_change]

Lest we paint a conspiracy where none might exist --- the "mystery" of the death of six airmen.

On July 20, 1st Lt. Weston Kissel, a 28-year-old B-52 pilot from Minot, died in a motorcycle accident while on home leave in Tennessee.

Another Minot B-52 pilot, 20-year-old Adam Barrs, died on July 5 in Minot when a car he was riding in, driven by another Minot airman, Stephen Garrett, went off the road, hit a tree, and caught fire. Airman Garrett was brought to the hospital in critical condition and has since been charged with negligent homicide.

Two more Air Force personnel, Senior Airman Clint Huff, 29, of Barksdale AFB, and his wife Linda died on Sept. 15 in nearby Shreveport, Louisiana, when Huff reportedly attempted to pass a van in a no-passing zone on his motorcycle, and the van made a left-hand turn, striking them.

Then there are two reported suicides, which both occurred within days of the flight. One involved Todd Blue, a 20-year-old airman who was in a unit that guarded weapons at Minot. He reportedly shot himself in the head on Sept. 11 while on a visit to his family in Wytheville, Virginia. Local police investigators termed his death a suicide.

The second suicide, on Aug. 30, was John Frueh, who has been touted as "a special forces weather commando" at the Air Force’s Special Operations command headquartered at Hurlburt AFB in Florida. Some websites have touted him as this special services specialist, trained to kill. In reality, a "weather commando" - they ALL call themselves special forces commandos and wear the neat beret - collected information for the Air Weather Service and made predictions of weather conditions in a specific area of operations. He certainly would never have been actively involved in an active operation, and probably had no more than the rudimentary basic military training.

None of these airmen were involved in the incident in question - they were not able to disprove that Airman Blue had ever done guard duty OUTSIDE the weapons storage area, but they did prove that he was not cleared to enter the storage compound, and would have been summarily stopped by the biometric security devices in place.

[Iwantutowantme]

Lest we paint a conspiracy where none might exist --- the "mystery" of the death of six airmen.

On July 20, 1st Lt. Weston Kissel, a 28-year-old B-52 pilot from Minot, died in a motorcycle accident while on home leave in Tennessee.

Another Minot B-52 pilot, 20-year-old Adam Barrs, died on July 5 in Minot when a car he was riding in, driven by another Minot airman, Stephen Garrett, went off the road, hit a tree, and caught fire. Airman Garrett was brought to the hospital in critical condition and has since been charged with negligent homicide.

Two more Air Force personnel, Senior Airman Clint Huff, 29, of Barksdale AFB, and his wife Linda died on Sept. 15 in nearby Shreveport, Louisiana, when Huff reportedly attempted to pass a van in a no-passing zone on his motorcycle, and the van made a left-hand turn, striking them.

Then there are two reported suicides, which both occurred within days of the flight. One involved Todd Blue, a 20-year-old airman who was in a unit that guarded weapons at Minot. He reportedly shot himself in the head on Sept. 11 while on a visit to his family in Wytheville, Virginia. Local police investigators termed his death a suicide.

The second suicide, on Aug. 30, was John Frueh, who has been touted as "a special forces weather commando" at the Air Force’s Special Operations command headquartered at Hurlburt AFB in Florida. Some websites have touted him as this special services specialist, trained to kill. In reality, a "weather commando" - they ALL call themselves special forces commandos and wear the neat beret - collected information for the Air Weather Service and made predictions of weather conditions in a specific area of operations. He certainly would never have been actively involved in an active operation, and probably had no more than the rudimentary basic military training.

None of these airmen were involved in the incident in question - they were not able to disprove that Airman Blue had ever done guard duty OUTSIDE the weapons storage area, but they did prove that he was not cleared to enter the storage compound, and would have been summarily stopped by the biometric security devices in place.

*************
No conspiracy thoughts here loose, as far as the unfortunate deaths are concerned. The conspiracy lies elsewhere. But then maybe,,,just maybe everything was on the up and up. After all it was just an unfortunate 'accident' that someone spotted the nukes under a B52 in La. (to bad for the conspirators) Nothing else was an accident. To regard it as such is absurd to say the least. You have alot of interesting articles.

IN other concerns: The Rapture per say: whether it be pre-trib.. trib.. post trib.. or not at all, should not be the primary focus for a Christian. Focusing on daily trials and tribs while walking in the spirit or 'spirit lead' is important also. Faith is what Christianity is about. Faith in God's son and his faith in the Christian. You cant scientifically prove it exists. Faith is what separates a true believer from those who dont believe or are decievers of themselves and others. ((just food for thought))... regards kripto..amer vet.......NATO/SHAPE SG

[mrdiscreet]

B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning

Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater
By Wayne Madsen
Sept. 24, 2007

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.

PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the /Times of London/, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a "decapitating" blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.

Kass' area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring "information blockades," such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian "nuclear installation." British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a "true flag" attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.

The other part of CHECKMATE's brief is to ensure that a media "perception management" is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick's and Walter Pincus' bylines in yesterdays /Washington Post/. The article, titled "The Saga of a Bent Spear," quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the "nuclear business" since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident "more disturbing."

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.

CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.

Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media.

In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command.