London 07/July/05

[Wedge]

Yes, clergy was the right word. And I think the crusades are another good example of problems with religion. During the "liberation" of Jerusalem the Crusaders either killed, or raped first and then killed, all for the Greater Glory of God with bishops and cardinals cheering them on. This can lead you to either one of two conclusions: A: The Roman Catholic God is so opposed to other religions the slaughter of innocents is perfectly acceptable (IE, The 3rd Commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."). Or B: The clergy of the time did not practice what they preached, instead advocating for atrocious acts in the name of a deity they had no right to speak for. Hell of a choice really, either your God is morally vacant or your clergy, the mouthpieces of said God, are interpreting things however they believe. that is assuming there is a god of course, and the clergy of the time weren't just making it us as they went along.

I do tend to wonder, though, what would happen if a time machine were ever invented. What would happen to religion if a group of people went back in time to follow Jesus Christ or the Prophet Mohammed, or any of the other deities out there, and found that they were simply ordinary men who’s tales had been embellished over the centuries? How could they justify atrocities in the name of their god, if there were no god?

[LC La Forge]

Option B is really the correct one, because the 3rd Commandment was really directed at material "gods", such as wealth, etc.

But yes, it is sad that people are able to justify the killing of others through religion, especially when the writings and teachings of said religions often speak of peace. But, I suppose, "even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

[Syrtaras]

Wedge: Your link sucks.

All this nationalist crap about how great soldiers are for a country and its citizens is just that: crap.

The military, and with it, the individual soldier, is just a tool of the government. One day, it defends freedom and democracy, the next day, it helps a new government subjugate other nations. So, don't ever give me this right wing nutjob bullshit about how great soldiers are.

Also, the usual arguments about how the soldier - and ONLY the soldier - gives us freedom of speech and all the other neat rights is not true at all:
Did India drive out the Brits with superior firepower? No. The entire thing went on very peacefully, did it not?
How about the German Reunification? Did mighty armies clash and free the poor Easterners from the iron grip of Commie rule? I don't think so. People went out on the streets and said "Fuck this, we don't want it anymore." And it miraculously happened. Without anyone having to fire a single shot. No soldiers needed.

Now, Fox News smartasses - how's that?

[RES Mitchell]

Now, Fox News smartasses - how's that?

Takes one to know one, Syrt. I appreciate your honesty, let me put that out of way. We need more honest people in politics, from all sides, especially in my country. But I don't think anybody in any occupation deserves this sort of ridicule, military included. They are doing their job, and have no choice of whether or not to follow orders. As a pacifist, I am generally opposed to war and armed conflict, and feel that war is nothing more than a brutal form of distraction from other problems, or an effective way of pumping up one's ego without seeking the courageous path of peace.

But I refuse to speak ill of American foot soldiers. Nobody asked them to do what they are doing, and they are only following orders. If you have a beef with the military, set your sights on the generals and politicians who treat these ordinary men like tools of their own self-aggrandizement, as you rightly point out. They are the ones who deserve to be spoken ill of.

With my good friend Russell heading off to the military in the next year or two, I can only pray that if he dies in combat, it will be for something noble, rather than for some general or some politician's future dinner dates at Elaine's. I hope for Dan's sake that the people who will throw him around the world like a frisbee with organs don't do so to play on the emotions of my countrymen and what Syrt calls "nationalist crap". I can only hope I am wrong about generals and politicians. In fact, I've never hated being right about them more than anything in the world. *sigh*

[Wedge]

Wedge: Your link sucks.

All this nationalist crap about how great soldiers are for a country and its citizens is just that: crap.

I never said I completely agreed with the views of Fox News. I merely posted the link to show how some malicious people can take the opposite side of the argument and actually cheer when soldiers get slaughtered. I still feel a great amount of respect and admiration for those who have the courage to step up in defense of their nation and beliefs (So long as they are justified in their cause, unlike the crusades). Every nation needs a hero in a time of strife, and that person is usually a soldier, because they are on the sharp end of the government policy stick.

The military, and with it, the individual soldier, is just a tool of the government. One day, it defends freedom and democracy, the next day, it helps a new government subjugate other nations.

I actually agree with you on this. This military is a tool of a government, but it is the government that is ultimately responsible for the actions of the military. You can't blame the sword for the actions of the hand that weilds it. Case in point, the military did not choose to invade Afgahnistan and Iraq, George Bush did. The government of every nation has the responsibility to use it's military in the defense of justice and peace, not to use it as a means of plunder or subjugation. Unfortunately not all nations ascribe to this idea, and thus we have conflict. I'm not saying the military is entirely blameless, they do have to follow a code of ethics and when they break it they get punished. However the majority of blame for a military action falls on the political decision behind it.

Also, the usual arguments about how the soldier - and ONLY the soldier - gives us freedom of speech and all the other neat rights is not true at all:

The military is but one part of a large system, contributing in it's own way. Politics, as much as people claim to hate it, is also an important guardian of freedom and justice (When it works properly, that is). The will of the people, the rule of law, and the ability to speak our mind in open forums like this are but few of the many ways that freedom of speech and all our other rights are protected. And knowing this, I never claimed that the soldiers are the only guardians of our rights, and neither did Fox News. They did fail to list the other parties responsable for preserving our rights, but the subject of the guy's complaint was the military so the reporter focused on that.

Did India drive out the Brits with superior firepower? No. The entire thing went on very peacefully, did it not?
How about the German Reunification? Did mighty armies clash and free the poor Easterners from the iron grip of Commie rule? I don't think so. People went out on the streets and said "**** this, we don't want it anymore." And it miraculously happened. Without anyone having to fire a single shot. No soldiers needed.

Canada was once a British colony, and we became independant without violence as well. As a Canadian citizen it makes me proud that we were able to have our own nation without spilling blood, so I understand quite well the point you are trying to make. It is nice when things go well and the military is not needed. However sometimes things get messy, and that's when you need to call on them.

Perhaps I should point out one final thing before I finish this post. The real reason I posted that link was not to deliberately offend you or inflame a debate over the role of Soldiers in every system of government. I did not intend to wave the banner of right wing nutjobs or use it as a way to preach nationalistic bluster. I posted that link because I thought it was funny to see a misdirected person get put in his place by an inflamed reporter. Nothing more, nothing less.