Onward Christian Soldier

[barmar]

Furthermore, since the US military is voluntary service, they tend to skew towards a particular personality, which emphasizes violence.

Probably a topic for another thread, but do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

No, it just seems intuitively very likely. Can you be a good soldier if you don't have violent tendencies?

 

Although I admit that many people have other reasons for joining the military than that they like to fight. Some do it because they don't see any better opportunities for their life. Others for patriotism.

[blackshoe]

Can you be a good soldier if you don't have violent tendencies?

Yes. I"m tempted to say "of course".

 

I suppose it depends what you mean by "violent tendencies". Warfare is not violence for the sake of violence. It is controlled violence, a means toward an end. That end being, in essence, to make your enemy do things your way. :)

[kenberg]

Surely my own experience, although fifty years in the past, is still pretty common. I graduated high school in 1956. I was interested in mathematics (that may not be so common) and wanted to go to college but it was not clear how to pay for it. I was considering joining the Navy, but when I got a scholarship I went on to college.

 

My reason for considering the Navy was that it seemed like a reasonable way to spend a couple of years. I had no wish to kill anyone but I understood that was what you sometimes do if you are in the military. Without the scholarship I probably would have tried to work out the finances for college anyway, but I hadn't decided.

 

Of course reasons vary, but I don't recall knowing anyone who joined up so that he could point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. I think those folks usually go into the hit man business.

[Winstonm]

Here may be a window into the cause of this growing concern: From PBS: (emphasis added)

 

Dr. Hagee founded and is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church that has more than 18,000 members. He is also the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries, which he says boasts a television and radio audience of 99 million homes.

 

At the recent annual CUFI summit in Washington, D.C., prominent politicians were present to pledge support for this growing movement, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lieberman particularly sang Hagee's praise:

 

"He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him...like Moses he's become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land."

 

CUFI considers its defining issue to be the growing challenge of radical Islam, particularly as relates to the security of Israel and the United States. CUFI is incresingly concerned by Iran and its potential nuclear threats. Hagee often alludes to Nazi Germany in order to underline what he believes to be the gravity of the situation:

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are reliving history. It is 1938 all over again," Hagee explains in a 2007 speech. "Iran is Germany. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, is talking about killing the Jews.

 

I think I have a solution - all of the radical fundamentalist Christians and radical fundamentalist Muslims would be invited to a Worldwide Smackdown held in Antartica, a no-rules fight to the finish, and the winning side would be given the honor of detonating a nuclear bomb on themselves for the glory of God or Allah, depending.

[Winstonm]

More of note from PBS, CUFI, and Hagee: (emphasis added.)

 

BILL MOYERS: There is no room for compromise here. Christians United for Israel opposes the Bush administration's roadmap for peace and urges American leaders to abandon it. The plan calls for a two-state solution in the region — if Palestinians lay down their arms and recognize Israel's right to exist, Israel will withdraw from certain disputed territories and move to help create an independent Palestine. For these believers the roadmap is inherently flawed because it is not biblically sound as Hagee often preaches to his congregation:

 

JOHN HAGEE: But the Palestinians have never owned the land. I want you to hear this very clearly. The Land of Israel was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their seed in an eternal covenant. It is recorded in the book of Genesis. The boundaries are there in the Bible. And that land belongs to the Jewish people today, tomorrow and forever because it is their covenant by the word of God.

 

Hagee is stating that political decisions should be based on the premise of biblical justifications - but isn't this the same concept they oppose - this blending of holy scripture as law of the land?

 

A bit more from the show: (emphasis added)

 

BILL MOYERS: But it's not Hagee's support of Israel that is beyond the mainstream — it's his bigotry towards different faiths. Here's what he thinks of Catholics:

 

PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: This is the anti-christ system; this is the apostate church this false cult system that was born in the Genesis ten that progressed through Israel and became veil worship God says the day is going to come when I'm going to cause this beast to devour this apostate system.

 

BILL MOYERS: And here's what John Hagee told NPR about Hurricane Katrina:

 

JOHN HAGEE: I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, that there was to be a homosexual parade on the Monday that the Katrina came, and the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

 

There is not doubt that those who follow John Hagee have the right to do so, believe as they wish, and lead their lives by this faith; however, when that type thinking becomes a political influence, it should be frightening enough to encourage any sound-minded, tolerant individual to politically oppose those ideas and values.

[Rossoneri]

I tend to agree with the view that the main problem is with the military and not the religion itself.

 

I happened to be in a somewhat similar, but less extreme situation myself, except that my Christian faith was targeted, though to be fair it wasn't really explicit targeting.

 

On a side note, it is sad to see "Christians" acting in such a way, but there are always such people around everywhere, such is the fact of human nature.

[matmat]

hopefully it will just be a short while before some male hooker comes out of the woodwork and points a finger at Hagee.

 

Personal faith can be a wonderful and uplifting thing, but organized religion, imo, is a sham.

 

-- edited for wording

[Winstonm]

hopefully it will just be a short while before some male hooker comes out of the woodwork and points a finger at Hagee.

 

Personal faith can be a wonderful and uplifting thing, but organized religion, imo, is a sham.

 

I wouldn't go as far as calling all organized religions a sham, as there is some good done from some of these groups. After having lived so many years, though, I am seeing a parallel between the upswings and downswings of organized religion and the economic well-being of the middle and lower classes - it appears to me that psychologically speaking, the idea that "religion is the opium of the people" is correct.

 

It is of note to me that this resurgence of evangelical religions has occured during a time when in the U.S. the gap between rich and poor is the widest in history, and globalization has transformed the U.S. economy into a service-based economy, thus pressuring the middleclass by removing manufacturing jobs and replacing them with usually lower-paying service jobs.

[matmat]

I wouldn't go as far as calling all organized religions a sham, as there is some good done from some of these groups.

sure. There is also some good done by charitable organizations that are not affiliated with religion. I really don't see why religious faith and GOOD faith have to be paired up...

[kenberg]

Hagee, who I had never heard of until reading of him on the Forum, is obviously a total nut job. Nut jobs often express themselves in religious terms. It does not follow that religious people are also nut jobs. It of course would help if the large majority of religious people who are not nuts would make their views on his rantings known.

 

The same applies to the Reverend Wright. Instead of saying that the Reverend's comments are divisive, it would be far more useful if Senator Obama would say something such as "It is a fact, not an opinion, that the US government did not develop the AIDS virus to wipe out the Black population, and if the Reverend says that they did he is either a lying demagogue or totally nuts". Of course Senator McCain should be making a similar announcement about the Reverend Hagee.

 

After which, Obama and MC Cain could hold a joint news conference and explain that they hope to devote the campaign to the discussion of real issues and they request that the nut jobs get off the stage.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

I like the idea but you forget this is politics - and in politics you can't offend the voters.

 

From PBS again:

 

BILL MOYERS: ....Here is John McCain back in the year 2000, when he was running against George W. Bush:

 

JOHN MCCAIN: Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

 

BILL MOYERS: That denunciation of religious extremism cost McCain the bible belt eight years ago; the fundamentalist forces of Robertson and Falwell threw their support to Bush and McCain was finished.

 

McCain won't make that mistake again....now it's Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran....

 

While the Hagee legions dance and shout and sing harmony - which is odd - how can you sing harmony for a disharmonious action? I guess it's simply because God moves in mysterious ways....thou shalt not kill...love thy neighbor...but let's kill all those bastards.....yep, it's a mystery to me, all right.

[luke warm]

it's one thing to lend credence to a body of work by either hagee and wright, it's another to deny an understanding or knowledge of that body... anyone who sat in hagee's congregation for more than a month and who then denied knowing what he believed and taught is either a moron or a liar (imo)... the same for wright

 

it's my personal view that christian churches should preach the gospel of Christ and trust in his sovereignty when it comes to ordaining a government that allows or disallows that preaching to continue... i just don't think religious leaders should involve themselves in politics, but i know i'm in the minority

[Al_U_Card]

That's what separation of church and state is all about. Politicians have no morals but are concerned about longevity. The church has the moral high ground and is willing to sacrifice the future to gain heaven. A noxious cocktail if one ever existed.

 

Religion seems to come from the latin "concerning being bound" because they are willing to commit to a course of action that is fatalistic while the politicos are rather more realistic.

 

Christian soldier, muslim soldier and....wait for it....with the Dalai Lama waiting in the wings....buddhist soldier. Who better to take everyone by surprise...the ultimate religious politician.

 

We will never know what hit us.

[Winstonm]

it's one thing to lend credence to a body of work by either hagee and wright, it's another to deny an understanding or knowledge of that body... anyone who sat in hagee's congregation for more than a month and who then denied knowing what he believed and taught is either a moron or a liar (imo)... the same for wright

 

it's my personal view that christian churches should preach the gospel of Christ and trust in his sovereignty when it comes to ordaining a government that allows or disallows that preaching to continue... i just don't think religious leaders should involve themselves in politics, but i know i'm in the minority

I have no objections to organized religion and recognize that: 1) they may be right, and 2) regardless, they have a right to those religious views.

 

But I am with Jimmy that when it comes to mixing relious fervor with political agenda, it is beyond of the scope of personal rights and into the realm of manipulation for agenda's sake.

 

Personally, I see little difference between Hagee's positions and those of a radical fundamentalist Muslin - and I find both dangerous.

[Winstonm]

Who better to take everyone by surprise...the ultimate religious politician.

 

 

But it takes a downtrodden and maleable proletariat to make such a leader plausible. The ultimate opium of the people.

[mycroft]

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

 

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

 

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

[mycroft]

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

 

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

[Codo]

I really don't get it. So there are religious idiots like this Hague guy.

And there are some silly rednecks who follow him.

 

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

 

But these guys have nothing to do with religion.

 

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

 

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

 

So please don't rate christians on so stupid guys. In civiliszed countries the 99,5 % majority of christians is different.

And I guess that even in redneck counties there is a big majority who thinks different.

 

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

[ASkolnick]

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

 

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

 

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.

2) On your money, it says "In God we trust". Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

 

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

[matmat]

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

 

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

 

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.

2) On your money, it says "In God we trust". Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

 

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

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

 

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

[pclayton]

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

 

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

 

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.

2) On your money, it says "In God we trust".  Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

 

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

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

 

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

Can I use Killing Defense?

 

(not a bad title if you are being sued :P )

[TimG]

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

 

Everyone complains that they need to be separated, but:

 

1) In a court, you swear on a bible.

2) On your money, it says "In God we trust".  Or my favorite line about that is "In God we Trust, all others pay cash".

 

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

isn't there a mention in the pledge too?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[kenberg]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[luke warm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don't get it. So there are religious idiots like this Hague guy.

And there are some silly rednecks who follow him.

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

[DrTodd13]

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