Priests/believers in the army?

[pgrmdave]

Assuming you have an enemy who won't reason, there is no 'peaceful solution based on common reasoning skills'. I do not believe that Saddam Hussein could've prevented the invasion of Iraq through peaceful means, he had an unreasonable enemy. The only deterrent he could provide was a standing army.

[Fishteacher73]

You forget we also had an unreasonable aggressor starting the Iraqi war....

[pgrmdave]

My point - an unreasonable person is just that, unreasonable. If there exists an unreasonable person, there exists a reason for large groups of generally reasonable people (nations) to have means of self-defense, hence armed forces.

[RiverRat]

Sure wouldn't want to start with an assuptiong that there may be a peaceful solution based on common reasoning skills.

 

THis al goes back to the mindset of believers (that I get yelled at for mentioning...)

 

Come to think of it .... Stalin was a reasonable leader.

 

He simply reasoned you to 'death' !

[Freethinker]

Some countries still practise the "eye for an eye" concept which is horribly uncivilized.

 

What if you ended up killing the wrong person? Or maiming him? You'd be as guilty as the offender.

Such as the estimated 10% of US citizens wrongly convicted and killed via Capital Punishment. The US being about the only Industrialized society that still sanctions this slaughter.

 

OK, perhaps one of the few times I agree with the claim of this being a Christian country.

[Fishteacher73]

The US had reasonable means to have avoided the Iraqi War...We elected Gore...The UN did not sanction it...well maybe violence does have a place...But that would only bring us Cheney...oh well.

[RiverRat]

At least there was 'due process' involved in the 10% of mistakes.

 

Talk 'due process' to the MILLIONS exterminated in Stalinist Russia.

 

Stalin made Hitler look like a wimpy school boy ... history was kind to Stalin.

[infamous]

How about HUMANITY'S?

 

Not until "believers" are able to drop their irrational concept of deferentiation, based on religious beliefs, invented geographical boundaries, skin color and language, we can not have peace in the world. It is one planet with one human race.

 

THAT should be OUR interest. That IS US!

 

Freethinker; Your too intelligent to refer to all believers as racists, aren't you. I believe that mentioning skin color as a religous platform is really not what you meant, at least one can't claim that, just because someone believes in a supreme being that he or she is a racist. Please tell me you didn't mean what it sounds like you were saying.

[pgrmdave]

I think he was using each of those examples independently, that bigotry, no matter what the cause, is wrong. He mention religious belief because so many people have tried to justify thier bigotry through religion, but he also mentions the other main causes - geographical boundries, skin color, and language, to show that he doesn't only focus on religion.

[infamous]

I think he was using each of those examples independently, that bigotry, no matter what the cause, is wrong. He mention religious belief because so many people have tried to justify thier bigotry through religion, but he also mentions the other main causes - geographical boundries, skin color, and language, to show that he doesn't only focus on religion.

 

I'll grant you that pgrmdave; there is no excuse for bigotry, religious, nationalistic, genderistic, nor any other lame excuse. Sadly, religion, nationalism, sexist, views have caused suffering for far to many people, there always seems to be an escuse for one group to persecute another. Let me say that I am personally ashamed of the way some act, just because they think they somehow are superior. Weather because of religious beliefs or nationalistic feelings of superiority, or any other stupid reason. I only ask, please do not include me, just because I have my own faith. And don't include me because you suppose, that I find every thing in the Bible to be of literal translation when I may not. My faith is personal, it applies to myself, does't have to fit in with your definition.

[Freethinker]

I will allude to a conversation I had with a WWII vet that witnessed what he claimed was a soothing spiritual presence among the chaos of war... However, the tone of our conversation left the impression with me that this was the norm rather than the exception.[/qoute]

With such simple anecdotal examples one can invent which ever conclussion one likes.

I would say (for the believers) that a lack of spiritual guidance (mass, communion, confession… etc) up to the point of expiration would leave one empty and more confused.

Yes, with the already overwhelming confusion over why the claimed all loving god allows such attrocities in the first place, why they are laying their dying, obviously ignored by their god, they are anxious to grasp whatever additional fallacies needs to stop the cognitive dissonance so common with believers struggling to push rational thoughts out of their mind.

Thus …. It would seem logical for Priests to be present in this environment. Priests would enable the soldier to reconcile the moral conflict of war and offer forgiveness.

Logical? What is "logical" about intentionally including additional superstitious nonsense which is already primarily responsible for the cause behind their deaths? Not only is it NOT logical, but it is UnConstitutional for the Government to PAY for this out of Public Funds (Taxes) And who are these people (priests, ministers) that are so extremely selfrighteous that they actually think they are in a position to FORGIVE these dying soldiers? Forgive them for what?

[pgrmdave]

Actually, it is not unconstitutional, the constitution merely prevents the government from creating any

law respecting an establishment of religion

 

It says nothing about paying for various religious persons to aid our armed forces. I believe that the law more prevents the government from preventing people from practicing their religion, it does not create a seperation of church and state, something which I support although I recognize that there is no direct statement of such in the constitution.

[Fishteacher73]

My faith is personal, it applies to myself, does't have to fit in with your definition.

 

A fantastic point that more people should take to heart. Faith is a personal issue and not something that one should impose on others.

[Freethinker]

What "right to think" have the Iraqi's had for the last several hundred years?

Boy, the implications of this question. You do not specify your intent and I hate to assume. It brings up more question than answers.

 

1) how little do you actually know about the area? Iraq did not exist "for the last several hundred years". Iraq was carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by direction of the UK government on January 10, 1919.

 

2) Why would the Iraqi's have any LESS "right to think" than we do?

 

3) what would have stopped their "right to think" other than the efforts of Christians to oppress them?

 

4) finally, what do you really mean to say/ ask here?

[IrishEyes]

I believe that the law more prevents the government from preventing people from practicing their religion, it does not create a seperation of church and state, something which I support although I recognize that there is no direct statement of such in the constitution.

 

I think you're right, dave. It has nothing to do with keeping God out of anything, including the government. It was meant to ensure that the government could not force people tp change their religions, or to have a government sanctioned religion that was forced upon all people.

[Freethinker]

Actually, I DID go back through many of your posts. That is why I felt very confident making the statement that I did to the people it was made to. Regardless of how *I* feel about the responsibility of religion on different world conflicts, YOU have stated, categorically at times, that it was in fact the cause. As *I* have been told by many here that I was wrong and you were right, or at least not to dispute you on that point as I would be 'proven' wrong, I figured, what the hell, if you can say it to me, why can't I say it to others?

 

This is, after all, a perfect example of intellectual evolution, is it not?

That's a long way to go to say I was right all along. Just to hard for you to come out and admit I know! :-)

 

Yes this does show you have intellect and it is another example of how Evolution works. Thanks for proving both.

Oh, and welcome back, by the way. I've missed you! Hope all is well in your world...

Yes, the new LLC is progressing nicely and consuming lots of my time. But I still get the overwhelming urge to Hypog at times.

[Freethinker]

Even without ... "some religious ideological superstition " there would still be violence and killing. This has been the human experience since the beginning. Up until the point where the human experience is 'deprogrammed' this will be a fact of life.

Massive infant mortallity "has been the human experience since the beginning". In most parts of the world, that has stopped. Religious superstitions "has been the human experience since the beginning". But non-belief in a god now represents a greater segment of the world population than any group other than Christianity and if Catholicism is seperated from other Christian sects (as most other Christian sects typically do) then we almost are the #1 personal philosophy.

 

Would there still be killing and violence when we finally rid the world of these antiquated ignorant supersitions? Most likely yes. But removing the largest single motivator and inspirational enhancer will dramatically reduce it. It would become the anomoly rather than the predominate method of interaction.

Priests in the military (which is the catalyst of the topic) does not inherently cross over a moral line. I suppose it would IF the Priest picked up arms and used it to conflict with his/her personal beliefs.

The issue is not MORALITY. Religion is far from MORAL and it's authorities have seldom shown strong moral compass. The topic is the pure hypocracy of the erroneous claims of this supposed morality in religious figures and their proactive involvement in war and killing in armies.