The enemy within: evangelical fundamentalism in US armed forces

[The WosMan]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And you seem to forget that the first amandement not only means not to make politics against free religion, but also to make laws in favour of a religion. Already the first settlers on Rhode Island, Quakers who were persecuted by the British crown, cared about the separation between state and religion, probabaly coming from their experiences with the crown, and the tradition of their services which are more unritual and more contemplative than those services of most other christian churches.

The first amendement to the US constitution does not only mean the right to demand the state not interfering with the free practicing of religion - it also means, vice versa, that the state should not intervene in religion's favour. Thus it describes a right as well as a limit of behavior. It prohibits the state to regulate or limit religion. It also prohibits that the state should help religion.

I could hardly remember any book, article, essay, statement, that would have expressed that the separation of state and church is not an intended reality in the US. It is a nation basing on the canon of values deriving from the christian-Judaic tradition - but it is no theocracy, although there are fundamentalists who would like to turn it into one - in the name of their own views. This is what needs to be fought against - not against but on the basis of the constitutional order, and it's defense.

A general view on those parts of US history that are relevant for this discussion, with some interesting details, ranging from the relation between state and private initiative concerning wellfare, over the fear of a wave of Catholic immigration in the 19th century and the importance of Jefferson, to the developement of the school system over the nation's history:

http://www.ibka.org/en/articles/ag02/kirkhart.html

The author is American, and lives in America. What he says very much is what I remember to know about the issues, so I support his evaluation.

See I make a simple statement and you jump down my throat. This is why there is such a problem because if someone even says one thing that supports religion another person gets all jumpy and offended. Cool down, have a drink. It's not even your country so why the hell are you so worried about it. There are better things to do in life then get yourself all worked up over some stupid thing that is being blown out of proportion half way across the world, especially since radical muslims are taking your countries in Europe over right from under your noses.

Are you angry at the world or something? I can tell you that Christians in this country have almost zero clout when it comes to anything anymore. If these evangelicals were so horrible and evil and insane then they would command the military to come out and shoot the town leader or head of a school district every year when some moron in control decides you can't say Merry Christmas to someone because it may offend them. You have to say "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" and then the local church can't even put up a nativity scene or some veterans cemetary in San Diego has to take down a cross. Where are these militant evangelicals at when it comes to this stuff? They must be out there strapping bombs to themselves ready to blow people up just like in Europe when some guy draws a comic and the muslims flip out and kill people.

[Skybird]

I did not jump down your throat, as you put it ( but I eventually could, to make you feel the difference ), but I jumped onto a half-baked statement saying the first amandement only means the state is not to hinder religion (hiding that the first amandement also implies the state has no right to help religion, by that raising the wrong impression - and saying - that the state is not being separated from the church).

And since the original thread was about the influence of fundamentalists in the military, and the filtering of reality perception that these religious dogmas may cause in military (and political) leadership, I (Germany, europe, the world) has a very legitimate interest in what is going on in your "internal" affairs. In those areas where you influence and interfere with other nations and people in not so exclusively an internal way only, you can hardlky do so and then say the effects for others should be ignored. Because the American modern culture, no matter if you like it or not, spans the globe since 40., 50 years, and the American foreign policies are affecting the world community as well as American economical decisions do. The dollar weakness is no internal American affair, for it has reached a level where it now does threatening ammounts of damage to european key indiustries like Airbus, and it starts to costs jobs - our jobs. The financial mess of the US budget is no internal american affair. The wars America fight and may launch in the future, are not an internal American affair. Where you touch other people and nations, their political, economical, security conditions and interests, it is no internal American affair. - I for example do not care for the Voodoo religion in Haiti, for Haiti's influence on ther world is limited if not non-existend, and if occasionally in some moon-lightend night a rooster get sacrificed over a camp-fire, i must not stick my nose into toher people's business, and it does not interest me at all. But the Us is not just a small banana republic, but a major player, and what it does, becomes, changes, decides - affects several times as many people worldwide than just those 310 million american citizens living on the northamerican continent.

So the mental attitude and code of values in your political and military caste, and wether or not your military and political leadership falls under the spell of some suspicious religious dogma or not - is very well of vital concern for us in europe, and elsehwere. In Iraq, for example. Or is that also just an internal american affair that Iraqis must not care for?

[Radtgaeb]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did not jump down your throat, as you put it ( but I eventually could, to make you feel the difference ), but I jumped onto a half-baked statement saying the first amandement only means the state is not to hinder religion (hiding that the first amandement also implies the state has no right to help religion, by that raising the wrong impression - and saying - that the state is not being separated from the church).

And since the original thread was about the influence of fundamentalists in the military, and the filtering of reality perception that these religious dogmas may cause in military (and political) leadership, I (Germany, europe, the world) has a very legitimate interest in what is going on in your "internal" affairs. In those areas where you influence and interfere with other nations and people in not so exclusively an internal way only, you can hardlky do so and then say the effects for others should be ignored. Because the American modern culture, no matter if you like it or not, spans the globe since 40., 50 years, and the American foreign policies are affecting the world community as well as American economical decisions do. The dollar weakness is no internal American affair, for it has reached a level where it now does threatening ammounts of damage to european key indiustries like Airbus, and it starts to costs jobs - our jobs. The financial mess of the US budget is no internal american affair. The wars America fight and may launch in the future, are not an internal American affair. Where you touch other people and nations, their political, economical, security conditions and interests, it is no internal American affair. - I for example do not care for the Voodoo religion in Haiti, for Haiti's influence on ther world is limited if not non-existend, and if occasionally in some moon-lightend night a rooster get sacrificed over a camp-fire, i must not stick my nose into toher people's business, and it does not interest me at all. But the Us is not just a small banana republic, but a major player, and what it does, becomes, changes, decides - affects several times as many people worldwide than just those 310 million american citizens living on the northamerican continent.

So the mental attitude and code of values in your political and military caste, and wether or not your military and political leadership falls under the spell of some suspicious religious dogma or not - is very well of vital concern for us in europe, and elsehwere. In Iraq, for example. Or is that also just an internal american affair that Iraqis must not care for?

Like it or not, morals derived from religion/faith. Morals make laws. What do you want? NO laws whatsoever?

Iraq, though I don't support the war in any war, was not a religious issue AT ALL. It was about "WMDs" *which don't/didn't exist* (but probably more about lining the pockets of the higher-ups). We got bad information. The British got bad information. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Germans got bad information as well.

Don't bring faith into the attack on Iraq, I don't even think that Johnnie Cochran could've made that connection with coherence.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by waste gate

You may notice that no mention is made concerning seperation of church and state. Only that the congress/state shall not establish a religion.

Of course someone had to try to bring that up. Exactly how do you define the difference?

Rather than go into that argument in depth, I'll just refer you to the opinion of James Madison. After all, he was the guy who wrote the thing.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Radtgaeb

[
Like it or not, morals derived from religion/faith. Morals make laws. What do you want? NO laws whatsoever?

Have you realised that somewhere above I admitted that the US is a nation in the tradition of Christian-Judaistic values? Like Germany is. But nevertheless both nations are truly secular - religions has not been allowed the power to influence the decision-making of poilitics for it's own internal interests and dogmas, and national offices and autorities are not to fulfill the interests of religion. THAT is the decisive point. The basic fundament of historically grown values of a society, and religious fundamentalism, are two different things.

Iraq, though I don't support the war in any war, was not a religious issue AT ALL. It was about "WMDs" *which don't/didn't exist* (but probably more about lining the pockets of the higher-ups).

Here you reject your own subtelty you just tried above. Both Bush and Blair were/are two people who made decisions in favor of war - and based on what they considered to be their morals, and both try to present an almost exemplaric image of being "religious" to the outside, and the media, and so itnense that it is almost pathetic and has earned them a lot of disgust and criticism for that theatralic effort. The war, btw, was only superficially about WMD, infact it was preplanned more than 10 years in advance, and had been described in papers by neocon planners since the early 90s. WMDs and Al Quaeda were just lame excuses to blind the public. We had the discussion repeatedly, so I leave it here.

We got bad information. The British got bad information.

No, the bad information was self-made, it was demanded and ordered by the leading ranks that the secret services should show up with "info" sayin Iraq has WMDs and by that to support the war, even when such infos were not available. But again, we had that discussion.

If I'm not mistaken, I think the Germans got bad information as well.

Yes? All I remember is that we and some others warned and warned and warned again about the war in general, and the highly questionable "quality" of things liike the niger-deal, the London missile memo, the AQ-link. But again, we had that discussion.

Don't bring faith into the attack on Iraq, I don't even think that Johnnie Cochran could've made that connection with coherence.

But I do, by the figure of Bush, who said that God talked to him, and who repeatedly has referred to his beliefs with regard to his policies not only with regard to Iraq). Blair also has referred to his Christian faith, with regard to Iraq. And in the early phase of the war, when first resistance was forming up in later 2003, I remember those TV pictures of American pro war-protesters , and a hysteric women almost cried into the camera that she felt so sad that those unthankful, misunderstanding Iraqi did not understand that all the Americans were tryin to bring them was God and the loving Christian truth.

This is a parade example of why fundamental religious views infiltrating the military and the poltiical decision making, as stated in the study this thread is about (!) , are of such high concern.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...religions has not been allowed the power to influence the decision-making of poilitics for it's own internal interests and dogmas, and national offices and autorities are not to fulfill the interests of religion. THAT is the decisive point.

I've been trying to vocalize that for years, and never quite done it like that.

Well said!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've been trying to vocalize that for years, and never quite done it like that.

Well said!

Thanks, glad that at least some guys understand what I am about, and that it is no blind anti-religious ranting or blind anti-americanism by me.

[Radtgaeb]

I never said that I thought Bush/Blair was a great president/prime minister. But I never said that I thought they were honest Christians either . That's just my personal standpoint. Anyone who is willing to say that God told them to go and make billions of dollars by a lie probably isn't in it for their faith.

I'm a fairly conservative Christian (Baptist). But I'm the most liberal conservative Christian you'll ever meet. I stand by separation of church and state. Yes, I said it, stand by it! I don't like the idea of a theocratic Fascist government just as much as you don't like it. Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or whatever - religion needs to be maintained in the home and the church and not in the courthouse or legislature. I understand your point there. But I digress for good from this thread.

PS: I knew WMDs were a lie. That's why I put them in quotes.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Radtgaeb

I never said that I thought Bush/Blair was a great president/prime minister. But I never said that I thought they were honest Christians either . That's just my personal standpoint. Anyone who is willing to say that God told them to go and make billions of dollars by a lie probably isn't in it for their faith.

I'm a fairly conservative Christian (Baptist). But I'm the most liberal conservative Christian you'll ever meet. I stand by separation of church and state. Yes, I said it, stand by it! I don't like the idea of a theocratic Fascist government just as much as you don't like it. Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or whatever - religion needs to be maintained in the home and the church and not in the courthouse or legislature. I understand your point there. But I digress for good from this thread.

PS: I knew WMDs were a lie. That's why I put them in quotes.

Okay, then you are a secular theist andl conservative believer by your own words, and I am an atheist and anti-theist, and nevertheless I think we would not have any problems between us if we were neighbours or colleaguesl for example. Nice to meet you!

[The WosMan]

Skybird, I am not ignoring the first part. The first part is what everyone always seems to focus on. I guess my main problem is our American society seems to be degrading into a very anti-christian, anti-religion atmosphere (and this is coming from a guy that goes to church only a few times a year). While it is important to keep government and religion seperate, it is also another thing to use government and the courts as a hammer to smash away at moral society and organized religion. The ACLU and atheists who have an agenda can't leave well enough alone using lawsuits to scare people and government. It really isn't too far from what the Communists did to organized religion in Russia.

All you need to do is research Congressman Albert Herlong when he entered into Congressional records the Communist Goals back in 1963 that had been obtained from a communist group that had been arrested. These goals outline how to destroy American society. Since this time period many of these have been done. The most telling in regard to the subject is 27 and 28.

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

If you want to read the rest here is a link http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml. I find it scary.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

If you want to read the rest here is a link http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml. I find it scary.

The fact that you seem to think #27 and 28 is more worrisome than say #41 (Parents) or #42 says a lot about you.

[The WosMan]

I was pointing out those relevant to the discussion but yes, those are bad as well and are already well under way.

[antikristuseke]

I dont see how elimination of prayer from public scools leads to the destruction in the american society, but thats just me.

[Iceman]

Skybird I just love ya...

Don't know if ya saw a movie called "Who Killed The Electric Car" but it made me think of you.You should watch it if you have'nt seen it.I happen to live where they took some of them to be turned into borg cubes.The Mesa Arizona GM proving grounds.

"They enemy within?" wow what a topic.

I mention the above movie for Skybird when he says I hope for failure of the planet.The planet doesn't need me to hope for it's failure yet I realize my position in life and will effect and speak where I can to contribute to the "harvest" of God which does not mean Death has to occur before the benifits of God can be realized.

Be fruitiful and multiply. I have.
Fear God and keep His commands. I try.
Believe in the only begotton of God, Jesus Christ. I do.

Skybird me and you are like two men standing across a river trying to have a conversation...you want me on your side and I want you to cross to mine. I have been on yours already and there is no life or hope there. All I can do is try to show the way I got across. If you fall in or jump in for that matter there is nothing I can do about it and I accept it, yet would still try to throw you a line even if you spit in my face and swim back to your side.Many here are impressed with your claim to know something about the mind and marvel after you I am not one of them.You do not fool me Skybird...what you think is knowlodege is not and I am afraid you have a rude awaking coming.

Christ did not involve himself or try to take command of the Roman army there is no need.Flesh and Blood is not all there is to life.An army is preparing to ride though...


Revelation 19
[11] And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
[12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
[13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
[15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
[16] And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
[17] And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
[18] That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
[19] And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
[20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
[21] And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Skybird me and you are like two men standing across a river trying to have a conversation...you want me on your side and I want you to cross to mine. I have been on yours already and there is no life or hope there. All I can do is try to show the way I got across. If you fall in or jump in for that matter there is nothing I can do about it and I accept it, yet would still try to throw you a line even if you spit in my face and swim back to your side.Many here are impressed with your claim to know something about the mind and marvel after you I am not one of them.You do not fool me Skybird...what you think is knowlodege is not and I am afraid you have a rude awaking coming.

I must say ... as an atheist, I have the greatest pity on a man who needs an omnipotent being (even rather generously assuming he exists) to find "life or hope" in his existence.

Originally Posted by The WosMan

I was pointing out those relevant to the discussion but yes, those are bad as well and are already well under way.

We can discuss that too...

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"

Quite frankly, as an atheist, I fully support #28. AFAIK The practical effect of allowing prayer in US schools (generally executed in a classroom) often places atheists (who are a minority) in an untenable situation.

For #27, from an atheist point of view, the Bible hardly needs further discrediting, scientifically (won't get past Genesis) or morally (by Exodus the general flow is obvious), but since most Christians seem totally oblivious to this (see Kansas or the votes) it is reasonable. I wonder how many people will be Christians if, starting from Primary School, atheists get "equal time" to go through the Bible in churches.

The "religious crutch". If you take the viewpoint that deities don't exist (as an atheist does), then how much more value does a God have over the "Invisible Friends" that a child often has? Since most can agree that the Invisible Friends are a crutch that's best grown out of when maturing, the logical extension is that religion is a crutch, though most atheists are too polite or too fearful of retribution from the religious majority to say this out loud.