We heard clips from hearings to the effect terrorist attack attempts are certain in the next few months, including by US citizens. I don’t think we can blame states for sheltering terrorists at this point. Nor does it seem realistic to carry a sort imperial democratization in the hope “good government” thus enforced will make every corner of the earth inhospital to terrorists. Al Kaida seems just one ideological element, pivoting on almost anything, globally, from Israel’s policies to bad cartoons.
So internationally certain individuals have the capacity (and a sort of model) for, shall we say, going pirate.
I’ve heard something about some part of I think US government trying to figure out the psychological dynamics of such defaults from normality. It reminds me of the deprogramming that tried to rescue flower children from LSD/marijuana cults, or from cults more ostensibly Buddhist. “Grown-ups” thought, How can people get so carried away?
Well, the extent of disillusionment and the extent of global change is making this psychological twist, whatever it is, inevitable. And dangerous.
But a military solution is only a Band-Aid approach. The hard-hitting part is psychological/cultural.

When i was in the military we all knew who was gay, we had a few in boot-camp, alot more in AIT, and in my Unit we had 2, the funny thing was these guys were all conservative, I only saw one instance in Drill that the man’s being gay was used against him to get him to retire after 20 plus years but i was told by my sgt it was more than that.There were more concerned with obama taking there weapons and allow universal health care for all citizens (the same they have btw)

The underlay value in the military is you don’t rat on other soldiers unless you wish to ready to have someone try and get you back punitively. People in the service with Black Mail others in the service if it furthers there career. People could tell who were the people that would bash gays openly btw (not on paper, or in-front of the commander,) but conversations but most the people in my unit down in the cape had no problem.

Onpoint could you please talk about how Blackwater was busted being in Pakistan? those 5 U.S. man slipped a note to reporters saying they were electro shocked and torture. And how many other Americans were actually there other than the 3 that died.

When I was in the service I saw alot of the gays, especially the lesbians go after the “new girls” like vultures. They were very liberal type of people and felt it was “their right” to do “whatever”…. I always felt alot of young people in the service, first time from home, etc..were being taken advantage by the gays. I left because of this “culture of gays” was just not my idea of a good work environment.

Michael, do you mean that the underlay in the military is: If you rat on a gay/lesbian soldier, you’re starting a fight? You’re “ready to have someone get back at you punitively”?
I am assuming that gay/lesbian soldiers know enough not to be disruptive (being intimate in barracks??), so to make trouble for them could be expected to invite retaliation.
I expect that because wherever the laws do not support what is fair and just, then people have to take it into their own hands. And hopefully the end to don’t-ask-don’t-tell will help that along.
But where the law itself doesn’t apply justice (maybe in jails, where there are codes of their own the inmates use), then there is retribution outside the law.
You seem to suggest gays and lesbians have their efficient defenders, or are organized for themselves. Is that so?

I just heard Tom Ricks speak at Tufts University on Tuesday. It was an interesting talk and gave me a lot to think about, especially in regards to Iraq. One point he made was how the American people don’t pay as much attention to the war in Iraq, which I agree is true. Having just watched “The Hurt Locker” last night, I was wondering if he’s seen the movie and if he sees movies like it as a way to get the Iraq war back on Americans’ minds.

Perhaps some relevant quotes about the wars from Mr. Orwell are needed. As per:

“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”

“The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. ”

“War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”

“It’s not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.”

-George Orwell

If Mr. Orwell were alive today, would he not change …”Eurasia, or East Asia”… to: Iraq or Afghanistan

On “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross, Tom Ricks said the surge worked in Iraq, but he didn’t know whether or not a surge would work in Afghanistan. Now Ricks says he is pessimistic about Iraq but cautiously optimistic about Afghanistan. Go figure! IMO Tom Ricks talks with authority out of both sides of his mouth. The bottom line is United States was never justified in invading and occupying Iraq and is not justified in waging a war in Afghanistan now in its 9th year and occupying that country indefinitely into the future. The only guaranteed “success” of a U.S. surge in Afghanistan will be the further destabilization of Pakistan. Ted Koppel says United States will be in Afghanistan for 30 or 40 years because unstable Pakistan has nukes.

The Taliban are just a bunch of Hillbillies? How about offensive. This man has no idea of his own U.S. history or the comparison he is making. If he had said that the Taliban are just a bunch of ghetto thugs how do you think that would have been taken? Horribly offensive and a radically inaccurate comparison. I shut off the program because of this.

Think you know war? Here’s one man’s take:

“The Riddle of the Trees”

How many trees make a forest?
Where a shaft of golden sunlight streams
Past leafy greens
And viny jade
Toward a tiny glade,
There to fall upon moss, mushrooms
And the fiery blooms
Of the wild Tiger Lily.

How many trees make a forest?
Where lingering in a petite meadow-glen
Silvery moonglow
Floats above the mist,
As dewdrop kisses
Bid welcome to the dawn
And to a land reborn
With the buzz and hum of life.

How many trees make a forest?
Where in the glen a cabin stands,
As with his hands
Was the clearing made,
Where with wife and child did he stay
Before heeding the call,
Tho it’s the young who do fall
In the clashes of old men.

How many trees make a forest?
Where the autumn leaf being shed for seasons
Has no need to reason
Why a clearing went to brambles, or
Why a cabin is in shambles.
Seek not to solve the riddle of the trees
While on the breeze is yet unanswered,
‘How many dead make a war’?

—-
Copyright (c) 2008 F. William Bracy
All rights reserved

Afghan & Pakistan leaders are competing each other on who can Milk US money more. USA probably dosen’t even know how is the money given to Pakistan government is being used or it might be trickled down to Taliban.

Tom,
Gays have been around since the military itself. They were there then, 20 years ago, 60 years ago, 200 years ago and 2,000 years ago. Get it over it. As long as they meet their requirements they are fine.

The military is a reflection of America. Some great, some not. It is not perfect but honesty is usually best policy.

Caller “Paul” doesn’t live the same USA as me. Americans are incapable of sustained war? Afghanistan and Iraq are the two longest wars in our history and show no sign of ending! In general,the public and politicians have tolerated this endless war with remarkable patience. Vietnam, Korea and even the Pacific War faced more public impatience than this.

I think that whenever congress tries to dictate rules for an institution it isn’t part of, and doesn’t full understand… there are going to be big problems. Look at all the eduction legislation in recent years. Look at how No Child Left Behind has negatively impacted schools! These things happen when congress tries to run things it isn’t in touch with. Put the generals in charge of military matters. That’s what I think.

Wow. It only takes one caller to change the conversation entirely. Thanks to caller A.J.

Ha. Okay… so I spelled education wrong. oops.

I have a solution to the problem of how to deal with the presence of women and gays in the military: Ban heterosexual men from serving. If heterosexual men are the ones raping their female comrades in arms and bashing their gay male comrades, then it’s the most straightforward solution, n’est-ce pas?

This call in on now about religion is dead on. It is always there in the service. The gay issue is exactly that, an issue with Christianity. America is a reflection of its people and this is the perfect example of intentional, but suppossedly harmless policy,that has gone awry. In fact Christianity has been used to rally around the flag for millenia, being gay hasn’t. Look at America’s leadership, their party affiliation and the choices they make regarding the gay subject and the military since Vietnam.

Mr. Ricks statement about “hillbillies” (in reference to the Taliban), went on to say, (such as Arkansas hillbillies). This really negated his points with me, although I had agreed with him up to that point. Having lived in Arkansas and observed for myself, I was highly offended. He became “just an ignorant speaker”, not having correct information and not having his information from personal experience. I consider myself well traveled and well educated. I learned many years ago that one can find what I call “rednecks” (an Arkansas expression) anywhere, for they aren’t confined to a locality or a geographic isolation.

Maybe Ricks should have said the Taliban are Tea Party sorts. Maybe not. But I do understand the Taliban better given the comparison to hillbillies. I think he intended to place the Taliban in a more favorable light, a light that makes it understandable to deal “with” them rather than “against” them, to see them as part of the woodwork the way our folk traditions are part of the woodwork. I am from New England and what I know of hillbillies is from literature and TV. Feisty, independent, salt-of-the-earth types. More traditional than modern, for sure.
So to me he was boosting the Taliban, not dissing hillbillies. I hope he’s right, and that their agenda does not include flying planes into skyscrapers for instance.

Let’s use a military draft for homosexuals, while maintaining a volunteer military service for heterosexuals. I’m not saying it’d be fair, just that it’d be interesting.

I bet if we made the military ALL gay, the boys would line up to join!

I am afraid John Randolph Hardison Cain didn’t hear me right on Terry Gross. I said the surge worked tactically but failed strategically. That is, it improved security but didn’t lead to a political breakthrough.

Or, in doggerel,

“I am sorry to be a pain,
But you got to listen to the whole sentence,
Mr. John Randolph Hardison Cain.”

Best,
Tom Ricks

“When I was in the service I saw alot of the gays, especially the lesbians go after the “new girls” like vultures. They were very liberal type of people and felt it was “their right” to do “whatever”…. I always felt alot of young people in the service, first time from home, etc..were being taken advantage by the gays. I left because of this “culture of gays” was just not my idea of a good work environment.” -Janet

This sounds either like some kind of provocateur, deliberately exaggerating experiences to justify some kind of bigoted point of view, or it is a genuine kind of distorted perception driven by fear that is prone to homophobic hysteria. In the phrases “they were very liberal type people and felt it was ‘their right,’” “being taken advantage of by the gays,” “the culture of gays,” Janet not only reveals something very telling about her mindset, but she makes military life for women sound like a 1950’s pulp-fiction, noir-esque, lesbian exploitation novel.

I agree that the issues of lifting the ban on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and allowing gays in the Military to serve openly may cause some problems at first, particularly among the Marine ranks of young, newly-enlisted recruits, but that’s what strong leadership is for in the Military, and that’s what demanding professionalism from its troops is all about. I also agree that much of what we hear in terms of opposition to the lifting of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes from the same place that opposition came from in having Blacks and Whites serve together in the Military.

Mr. Ricks, I have to take exception with something I believe you said in your interview. If it was not you, my apologies. You said if somebody was in more than 20 years ago, don’t listen to them. Well, I got out of the Marine Corps in 1986, so I guess your statement applies to me. I was Honorably Discharged and served just 1 month shy of 8 years. I spent time in Marine Barracks Philipines and both 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions and 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing. I never saw combat but saw my fellow Marines get killed in Beruit and Lebanon. With all do respect, I have just as much right to express my opinion on the subject of gays in the military as you do. And by my calculation, probably more. The reason that you want to negate this segment of the population is you don’t want to listen to uor argument. Well that’s one way of winning. I am not a religous zealot. As a matter of fact, I don’t even attend church. However I am a Christian by birth. Whom, the last time I checked also have the right to express their opinions. I am not a Bushie either. I voted for Gore and Kerry. Here is my position. First of all, I love all humanity. I do not hate anyone, so you can remove that arrow from your quiver. Humans are falible creatures. Including you! As a matter of fact a whole lot of people can be wrong. Take Nazi Germany for example. If you silence all descenting opinions, then who will be left to tell you that you are wrong! I, for one am not afraid to stand up and tell you in the most courteous and respectful manner that I can, that you are all wrong and you are taking us all down a road that we ought not go. You are sewing the seeds of the destruction of our country, our culture, our people and our civilization. You might have mislead some of our young people into believing that this devient behaviour is normal. But you can not kill the truth. The truth simply is. And no amount of words on my side or yours is going to change that. Time has shown us over and over again that there are consequences to upsetting the natural order of things. Your playing with fire.

Respect Submitted

Donald W. Roberts

Thomas Ricks wasn’t saying that people out of the military for twenty years should be silenced. He was saying that institutions change over time and that a retired general isn’t an expert on current views of service members especially on a subject like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell where the views of the American general population has shifted since it was instituted in Clinton’s first term.

Mr. Ricks statement about “hillbillies” (in reference to the Taliban), went on to say, (such as Arkansas hillbillies). [ . . . ] I consider myself well traveled and well educated. I learned many years ago that one can find what I call “rednecks” (an Arkansas expression) anywhere, for they aren’t confined to a locality or a geographic isolation. — Posted by Judy McCallum, — I thought it was funny to take offense at “hillbillies” and then call people “rednecks” in the same post.

“However I am a Christian by birth.” – Donald W. Roberts
– If so, what is the point of baptisms? We are all born atheists.

1. to Jon, the difference between the conflicts you listed is compulsory military service (the draft). The military we have now allows most Americans to avoid the horror of war. We don’t even pay for the wars we wage now, we just borrow.

2. Gary, thank you for the quotes, they were appreciated.

3. The offended hillbillies blow my mind. Should TV networks be sanctioned for playing “Deliverance” or reruns of the “Beverly Hillbillies”? The offended parties should enjoy a tall glass of get over it juice.

4. I’ve never understood something as private as ones sexual preference being in the domain of your employer (and the military is, at its base, an employer). If your preference doesn’t violate the law (pedophelia, necrophelia, bestiality) it shouldn’t affect your employability. We’ll look back someday on this prohibition and wonder why we were so foolish.

Donald W. Roberts,
You get the Godwin’s Law Award for the day in bringing up Nazis!!! …So, according to you, homosexuals engage in deviant behavior (and they mistakenly think its normal in your opinion); and, not only are these young people misunderstanding “natural law” and in direct violation of “natural law” they are being mislead to think this way! By whom, one might ask? Why, Mr. Ricks has mislead them! According to what you’ve said, anyway.

You are entitled to think these things, as are others who think differently. The difference is that when others think your views are bigoted and ignorant, it doesn’t infringe upon your rights at all! If what you think is imposed as restrictions on others, then your opinion infringes upon their rights! That is the main difference.

BTW, you spent a lot of time in your comment beating your chest about having the right to your opinion/comments, and all we got was: you think homosexuality is deviant! You didn’t say what you think about gays in the Military!?!

I assume that you think gays shouldn’t be in the Military, but in fact they already are! Also, you mention the truth as something that can not be killed, that it simply IS, but you said so within the context that what you believe absolutely is the truth. Ever consider that your beliefs are fine to believe, but may or may not be an absolute, essential truth? How do you know your opinions are truths?

Anyway, Mr. Roberts, I love you, even though you are a bigoted and ignorant man. God Bless!

Homosexuality is a moral issue that became a voting block, which in turn became a political issue then degraded into a civil rights issue. Then separation of church and state took over and legalized a sin.
If a female would find it out of place to be made to shower with her fellow male counterparts, knowing what they are thinking, then what is the difference making a male shower with a homosexual, knowing what he may be thinking? This is not an issue of civil rights, it is a moral issue and it has already been decided by the One who created us. Be careful folks whose side you choose!

Listening to Mr. Ricks I am s reminded how arrogant and ignorant Americans can be. Some how Americans can do better then anybody else in all of history. Wrong.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost. Insurgents anywhere can never be defeat by an invading army when the population supports them. What you have then is war of national liberation that no invader can suppress forever. America is an invader in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These two wars are nothing short of an over reach that
cannot be sustained for 40 or 50-year period. America’s fluttering and floundering economy will not be able to support the cost of this military adventurism. The best recourse out this catastrophic situation, that was given was to the Americans people by incompetent and arrogant policy makers, is take the shorts route out or be driven out.

“Homosexuality is a moral issue…degraded into a civil rights issue. Then separation of church and state took over and legalized a sin.”

“it is a moral issue and it has already been decided by the One who created us. Be careful folks whose side you choose!” -david

Ah, yes, now we’re getting to the real david! Let’s see, here, civil rights issues are a matter of degradation. Uh…let’s see, what else…because the church does not set public policy, this flaw legalizes sins. Mm…uh, oh, yeah…God has decided homosexuality is wrong and will exact his wrath on homosexuals, as well as people who think it is a good idea homosexuals are given their civil rights…does that about cover it, david?

So, I guess I’m going to that place of the damned; God sounds pretty harsh from listening to your view. I’m not even gay, yet I think gay people should enjoy all of the civil rights you and I have…but I guess it makes no difference to God; I’m going to that fire lake anyway! I’m surprised I wasn’t smote down at the beginning of writing this!

I’m sure God doesn’t really want to get all Biblical on my sorry soul, but if the government won’t let the church control public policy, what is He supposed to do? Right? But, why doesn’t God just make the government let the church control public policy? Wouldn’t that be easier? Free Will? Or, maybe it’s Free Will so we can have just enough rope to hang ourselves and go to that place where the “One who created us” wants to send us for an eternity if we screw something up? You sure that’s not Satan?

Also, your showering scenarios are kind of silly…So, are you saying the issues in the Military are showering concerns? If this will be a problem, it already is! Because gay men and women are already in the Military! And, if sexual desires are a concern, would you think then Lesbians and gay men should be showering together in the Military?…sorry, I just started laughing. But seriously, though, sorry…wait…still laughing…If the problem is a concern that gay men and women will not be able to control themselves sexually if they are able to be honest about their sexual preferences…well, that is just silly! I’d ask you about your views about Military men and women showering with bisexuals, but that would just blow your mind! If they keep themselves closeted?…now, no, that won’t work. Sorry for thinking that, God…really, sorry…please don’t smite me!

AH! I get it! Anyone suspected of being gay should NOT be allowed to serve their country in the Military?!! I guess if gay men are allowed to openly serve in the Military, you’re saying straight men and women will be subjected to being attacked in the shower? Is that it? And, their commanding officers will not be able to do anything about it?!!

Those gays wanting their right to sexually attack other people in showers!?! What’s up with those gays and their liberal, gay-loving, sexually-assaulting-others agendas?!

I guess anyone suspected of being gay should not be allowed in public gyms! What if someone wants the right not to be in the same restaurant or bar as a gay person? Should there be restrictions there? I mean who wants to have a gay man look at him in a sexual way after that gay man has a few drinks in him? And, what about nude beaches? Would that be a mitigating circumstance if someone were sexually assaulted on a nude beach?

Hey, now, let’s just play it safe in God’s eyes, okay? God has a lot on his plate, having to send all those people to those fiery eternities, and it must take up a lot of His time…couldn’t we help Him out a little bit? Especially if the government isn’t going to let the church take over public policy…Men and women, gay or straight, should be kept completely sequestered and segregated from each other until/unless they are going to have sex for the purposes of procreation, right?

Should we pull out of having a Military presence around the world to compensate for the losses of troops when gays and lesbians are kicked out of the Military? I mean pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would be a silver lining, as it were, but wouldn’t that just ruin the careers of so many gay men and women in the Military. If we start the draft back up as a way to build back up troops, after kicking gays out of the Military, won’t that result in just more gay bashing? I know, now I’m being ridiculous, right? Really, I mean how much are they protecting our freedoms if they are all busy satisfying their sexual appetites in the showers instead of out fighting al-Qaeda, anyway? Right?

I’d could say that British troops have a policy that gay men and women can serve openly, and that it is a non-issue for them…but, oh, right, they’re Brits! They drive on the left side of the road, after all!

“sex for the purpose of procreating,” approved by the Almighty — which leaves out a lot of human desire. Why would such a thing be stated?
Well, I scan publications, magazines, children’s yearbooks, of what’s common knowledge, and found that it is now given truth that about the time white people were coming to Jamestown to settle this continent, people could expect to live four years longer here than they could in England. In England life expectancy was 20 (40 if you were rich, but then you were not going to come, right?), and in the New World life expectancy was 24.
(I don’t know how they figure in infant deaths.)
But it makes a lot of sense, especially in the wake of plagues and so on, to procreate as if the devil would take the hindmost, pitchfork in hand. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. (Skip education; skip the career.) Just go direct to procreating and continue without a break.
Clearly homosexuals were useless to the human project of continuation. It could certainly be argued that they would be great cannon fodder, though. — or maybe too precious to spare, because of their not being threats to the harems of straight males. Weren’t the castrati attempts to create “disinterested” mature humans?
I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

“Michael, do you mean that the underlay in the military is: If you rat on a gay/lesbian soldier, you’re starting a fight? You’re “ready to have someone get back at you punitively”?
I am assuming that gay/lesbian soldiers know enough not to be disruptive (being intimate in barracks??), so to make trouble for them could be expected to invite retaliation.
I expect that because wherever the laws do not support what is fair and just, then people have to take it into their own hands. And hopefully the end to don’t-ask-don’t-tell will help that along.
But where the law itself doesn’t apply justice (maybe in jails, where there are codes of their own the inmates use), then there is retribution outside the law.
You seem to suggest gays and lesbians have their efficient defenders, or are organized for themselves. Is that so?”

no the under current as what i seen is you rat on someone they will find someway to get back at you, as the story about the gay soldier being forced to retire, where as this gay soldier found out another was using U.S. equipment for his garage shop the gay soldier reported its to the higher ups the other soldier got in trouble and many where pissed he ratted than it turn out that the gay soldier all of a sudden was going to retire from the military at this event, some of the older guys were saying it was revenge for him ratting on one of the sgts.

It could be that all of the sudden he wanted to retire(a total 180 from his behavior) but everyone in the unit knew he was gay and in for 20 plus years so it would be a easy to retaliation against him and many were mad that he told on the other solders.

That the only thing i saw when i was in the military where as i saw countless people get in trouble for doing the right thing in reporting improper actions.

What i seen in my unit we take an online anonymous re questionnaire type thing and the commander looks at it and gives us a speech on whatever incident that lead to the questionnaire and what will happen if you do it.

The other gay guy in the unit people just said things behind his back but wouldn’t think about trying to out him, he had enough people that made it clear whoever did would be taken care of(as in a punitive response.It took me a few months just to ask someone if this guy was for real cause of fear of being punished after awhile you just expected his behavior as being him.

So in one case the guy got outed for being gay and ratting on another solder so no one stuck up for him as where as the other who was the stereotype some may think of being gay if someone tried to blackmail him they would face a hellfire in return.

As for the barracks the gay guys didn’t get messed with besides the typical joking and making fun of but we did have a guy who was the gomer piles who many mess with more than that and took it to far but the ones who got in the most trouble was not the ones who did it but was the one who reported it and the two guys on Fireguard Duty when it happen(the ones who did it got KP or kitchen duty for 2 days and the one who reported it along with the 2 on fireguard duty at the time got a week and a half of fireguard duty (which sucks for them but was great for the rest of us)

If your curious as to what they did they made him piss himself (nothing not really as bad as other things they could have done).

Ellen, the only thing I know about the castrati is in reference to the Italian opera tradition of castrating young pre-pubescent boys to keep their singing voices in the soprano, mezzo-soprano, and contralto (or, counter tenor) ranges. I remember a book I read…it must’ve been about twenty years ago about the 18th century castrati in Italy. It was by Anne Rice, of the vampire novels fame. I think it was called, “Cry From Heaven” or “Call to Heaven” or…I can’t remember. It had “heaven” in the title.

I do vaguely remember hearing something about what you are talking about…the procedure proved to be ineffective, as it does not quell sexual desire, so it was a bit like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. Or, rather, a rooster in charge of the hen house; or, a castrato rooster, that has retained his sexual desires, in charge of the hen house…well, let’s just say, singing would be his second favorite activity!

Brett, look up janissaries, Turkish high-level militalry guardians who I believe were captured young and castrated. I always mistrust what I read about cultures far and long ago. What was written could have been skewed; my understanding could be skewed. The current extreme policies toward women in Islam makes it extra touchy, but I derived the impression that the Italian castrati were somehow modeled after certain practices more common in non-Christian traditions (think of female mutilation too; female sexual desire is not always valued).

Michael, thanks for your piece on what actually happens, as an example. That clarifies so much more than various opinions and pronouncements and hypotheticals. I am trying to figure out how one makes someone piss in their pants. Force-feed them coffee till they pop? Scare them pee-less? And fireguard duty, giving the rest of you a couple weeks break, whatever it is — well, your report is very interesting.
Brett, those castrated roosters if let loose in the showers would be a real threat. Just kidding. There might be a few undescended testicles that then descended and made for a closet predator of sorts. But I think we know from experience with dogs and horses and bulls and so forth, that castration is effective.

Why are we spending billions on defense???

What this big and powerful nation have to fear??a misguided kid with an underwear with explosives he couldn’t blow?
a mentally challenged with a shoe full of explosives put together by some amateur wannabe terrorists ?
Some unbelievably stupid plots by some clowns?

It’s ridiculous,more than half of cargos coming thru our ports are not checked, Mac Vey bought their explosives in the country!
What’s the fixation on airplanes?!
they’re just stealing taxpayer’s money on useless expensive weaponry, while the other developped countries are making real investments for their future.

Just like the late Benazir Butho had said, Osama ben Laden died a long time ago,She even gave the name of the man who killed him!Now ask yourself who is putting up those recordings, for what purpose?? If they have to use the picture of a lawyer in spain to portray Ben Laden…( the cia did apologized to the man!)

Of course i will be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
Till twenty years from now, when it’s no longer relevant,some of our talkingheads will write a book full of”revelations’

Well, looks like we have a solution to the problem, then, and it may have some Constitutional backing, in a sense. Supposedly, as I was just reading, here on the interwebs, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1778 that would impose a punishment on men who committed sodomy by castrating them!

Supposedly it is used currently in controlling sex offenders urges with some success in many countries…My own experience with the castration of animals is that most seemed to lose that “edge” but some didn’t…I wonder what the true percentages are on these matters?

Ellen Dibble,

warm water ,

as for fireguard is when you spend 2 hours additionally in the night staying up watching to make sure no one commits suicide, or tries to escape(normally 8 total two at a time for the night) also consisting of cleaning the barracks, normally every 2 hours, and there is a rotation/list that goes on for people that have to do it along with CQ which is siting down stairs with the Drill Sergeant, also KP which consist of serving, cleaning, and helping the civilian staff( but its been years so I’m not sure if this is still done by solders anymore)

[...] Read more… [...]

Great show.
Have to weigh in on a couple of issues:

The last caller made a comment about the lack of opposition to Pak, Afgh and Iraq wars since Obama’s presidency, and I believe the reason is that the emphasis is finally where it should have been all along: Afghanistan and, by association, Pakistan. Iraq was a losing proposition without basis in objective reality to begin with (not surprising given its source), and Obama is finishing it. There never was that much opposition to the Afgh conflict because of its obvious linkage to 911, but Iraq was totally stupid from its inception and everyone knew that.

Second point, was surprised at the total lack of reference to the role of the drug trade. Drugs like heroin keep the Taliban propped up and it is a travesty that there isn’t a serious move for legalization in the US and elsewhere. It would drive a stake into the heart of both Mexican violence in N America and Taliban control in Afghanistan.

Republicans will be cursed beyond the grave for the war on Iraq and for placing it on America’ credit card …

How hypocritical Republican leaders look today complain-ing about Obama’ deficit spending when I recall Mitch Mc Connell & John Mc Cain and others giving Bush carte blanc for his unnecessary and illegal war on Iraq and they never once complained about mortgaging anyone’s future by placing it all on America’s credit card.

(Indeed, they all supported the surge and extending the war without another a word on the additional cost.)

The democrats should remind young Americans of this as Tom Ricks did today on the show. It outraged my 20year old son at how irreponsible Republican leaders were and what they have done to his and America’s future.

(Iam sure they will be cursed beyond the grave for Iraq)

Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in 1778 that would impose a punishment on men who committed sodomy by castrating them! -posted by Brett,
– Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on the Constitution are relevant as to how that document should be interpreted but to leap to the conclusion that his views on specific punishments should be directly applicable today is nonsense. Considering the fact that the punishment for homosexuality was death at that time, castration was a more progressive punishment. If the enlightened Jefferson were alive today, I’d guess that he would look to scientific evidence, not myths, when setting public policy, as that was what he did in his lifetime. Remember he went through his copy of the bible and cut out every reference to the supernatural.

Uh, John, you were missing my satirical angle, there. If you read my response to david (also a kind of satirical angle in places within that comment), I was sort of satirizing the oft used Constitutional/Founding Fathers supposed perspective, etc., that many conservatives use in trying to argue modern-day concerns. I am a huge fan of Jefferson, and I am in total agreement that conservatives distort what our founders would have wanted. They (people like Jefferson) advocated equality but held slaves, etc., for example, yet, although they were progressive in their ideas, were often products of their era. This very phenomenon indicates that we can’t use how Jefferson, for example, conducted himself in his personal life, or even in his governing life, as a way to determine what direction our country should take in proceeding in setting policy today…

I thought, this morning, that I should have perhaps put some kind of disclaimer with my comments…something like [this comment uses satire to make some if its intended points and should not be viewed to represent any true opinions of its commenter]…Ellen, and even david (the folks I was responding to) know pretty much my views. I was joking around with Ellen, who I am in agreement with on most views, and I was sort of making fun of david who has very different views than I do, but who I hope–and get a sense of–is a good-natured, nice man and can take my ribbing.

To any point on castration as a punitive/preventive action in stopping “sexual deviancy,” it is practiced around the world today by various governments (the Czech Republic comes to mind). It has been used in recent history in certain states here in the US to curtail urges from men who have committed sex crimes. It is on a volunteer basis only–thankfully! I say so because it sounds a little too much like the mentality satirized in the book and movie “A Clockwork Orange” to me (where Anthony Burgess, the author of the book, was satirizing proposals made by politicians in England, at the time he wrote the book, who were running on a “law and order” platform advocating the use of chemical/medical intervention to alter the minds and behaviors of criminals).

I don’t believe we can glean anything authoritative or empirical by the data collected on castration as an intervention of “sexual deviancy” because A) the programs are voluntary, so the 100% effectiveness touted by officials has to be weighed against that fact and B) The men who have undergone the procedure all claim they are serene in their thought processes and have no urges to further commit crimes of sexual violence…of course, what else are they going to say?

Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

Sorry I missed the sarcasm. I’ve actually seen that argument put forward so it gets harder to create mock conservative rants. I’ve read so much nonsense by too many people using the founders in ways that make no sense. Unfortunately, four of them are on the Court.

Mr. Ricks,

I accept your correction made at 12:25 pm Feb 4th to my critical post made at 10:25 am Feb 4th. You did indeed state that the surge in Iraq was a tactical but not a strategic success, yet you seem to give tacit approval to an escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

What I fail to understand about your position is this: You hold that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a huge foreign policy mistake, but you also think that leaving Iraq is a mistake. I fail to understand how, short of apologizing for our mistake and leaving Iraq to Iraqis, we can expect any of our interventions in the Middle East or South Asia to succeed morally or strategically. You also said that we only have bad choices. You movingly stated that war is horrible and the longer you observe wars the more they seem a form of mass psychosis.

I don’t side with extremists or terrorism, but if a foreign power invaded my country and killed my friends or relatives, I would resist by any means necessary. I would like to see you come out squarely against war whether waged by Islamic extremists or Christian crusaders. The original crusades started with noble objectives but disintegrated into greed and corruption. The west faces a similar fate in this “long war” because of demographics, geography, resources, and historical imperatives.

You know full well that Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, and a regional conflagration involving Pakistan certainly is in no one’s best interest. There are better paradigms for settling disputes, for promoting stability, and for bringing terrorists to justice than the grand games of war that great powers play.

best regards,

Randy Cain

Brett, your response is like a 55 gal. drum with a big hole in the bottom, it just will not hold water in this case. It makes no difference what defense anyone can attempt to make concerning homosexuality. They can put them in the military, so be it, it changes nothing in the eyes of God. You can pass all the laws you want and still it does not change anything. They have the same civil rights under the constitution that anyone has, yet they want special, no acceptance for their behavior, which is a sin.(1 Cor. 6:9-10) This is not my makings, it is by God’s authority.
If you want to contend with God’s reasoning, read this:
Romans 1:18-32

There is no God, David. So there goes your argument … totally.

F. William Bracy, Yes my friend there is a God. Only in the mind of man do we deny that He exist in order that we may not be held accountable to Him. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Rom 1:20 I hope you can resolve your doubt before you meet Him, you will meet Him one day. I just hope this statement will not apply to any person on that day, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
Psalms 14:1

While we’re on the topic, what does God think of the drones and the people (us) who deploy them? I can understand why God might favor war as a way of weeding out the weak from the strong — well, not the weak according to the Sermon on the Mount — oh, forget it.
What does God think of the war?

Eccl 3:8 “A time for war and a time for peace.” Throughout history God has approved and commanded the use of war for only one reason.
Deuteronomy 9:4 “..because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you.”
Deuteronomy 21:21 “..you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”

Wickedness, which is evil, a refusal to obey a Holy God is the only reason God ever commanded nations to go against nations.

God gives clear definitions for wickedness in the Bible. The genocide of innocent people would be one.

Revenge is not an individual priviledge,it belongs to the government. Romans 13:3-4 “…an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

God will not approve of a war other than for removing evil from the earth. To do so will be done without His backing and power. So govt. should make a clear case for going to war. Wars in Biblical times were horrible.
1 Samuel 15:3..”utterly destroy all..”
People are sinful,not a reason for war, yet, when a nation as a whole becomes in practice bitterly evil, war may be necessary. Our God is a God of peace,so His wish is that we all live in peace. The wrath of God is against all who practice evil.

david,
You clearly are someone who is a Fundamentalist and believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and are someone who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God. I respect that you have your views, but you have to admit to a kind of arrogance in thinking you KNOW the mysteries of the universe, and that your interpretation of the essence of life is the ONE true interpretation?!

I see you have provided citations of certain passages from the Bible, as well as direct “quotes” from a couple of passages. The language of those “quotes” differs, however, greatly from one version of the Bible to the next, and they are and have been interpreted differently throughout history. Southern Baptist Fundamentalists, for example, want very much to interpret the Bible one way, and that it is absolute in their view. This fails to recognize that throughout history the Bible has been and can be interpreted in different ways. In 1Cor. 6:9 and 10, for example, the word “fornicators” can mean anyone not married who has sex, or men who have sex with each other, or women who have sex with each other, or married couples who have sex but not for the purposes of procreation…this is the most basic example of what I’m talking about.

Also, if the Bible is the direct word of God, why is it that certain Gospels were removed from the Bible? Seems like humans shouldn’t be discarding certain words of God while retaining others?!? And if it was God who told them to remove those Gospels, why wouldn’t He have just told them not to include those to begin with? Also, why is it that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in many passages are not always in agreement with each other? Seems like God would have made sure His words would be so clear as to not allow disagreement/interpretation/misinterpretaion, etc. So is all of this some kind of test of Faith? You know, like God is saying to Man, “I am going to give you volumes of my words, but I want to see if you can tell which of these words are really my words and which words are words I was using to trip you up to test your Faith! And if, as you say, the word of God is not followed then God will show His displeasure in a most wrathful way, are the people who find interest in the Gnostic Gospels doomed to an eternal damnation?

And what about the Tanakh? The Quran? There are differences in interpretation of “God’s Word” in those Holy tomes from what is in the Bible…? Does this pertain to other religions not being true religions?

And, what is with calling God “He”? Not that God is necessarily “She,” but can you prove that the universe exists as a result of a paternal being? When you look at the ocean or a mountain, is there something unequivocally evident in the intrinsic nature of those that would lead anyone to believe they were created and are controlled by a male entity? And if God is a “He,” what physical attributes about “Him” define “Him” as a “He”? Also, if you saw a father offer his children two choices of something and he asked them to pick one, that they could choose whichever choice they wanted; then, after they chose, he became really angry and harmed them because he thought they picked the wrong choice, wouldn’t you consider that abusive? According to your definition of God, He sounds like an abusive, negligent, bipolar father…If a person continues to honor, praise, and worship God, after being abused so much by Him, wouldn’t that be what is considered a codependent relationship?

Earlier, I was imploring you to at least consider the arrogant nature of proclaiming to KNOW about matters beyond what we CAN know. When I proposed this, I didn’t consider that I could be mistaking arrogance for superstition. Maybe not, or maybe there is a mixture of the two, this is often the case in any truth…To say, though, that one’s beliefs are supreme and only conflict with others’ beliefs because those others are mistaken, sounds like an arrogant view, but that could be my interpretation.

You’ll notice, I haven’t said you are wrong in your beliefs. I can’t say that you are. But if you can’t reconcile the issues I’ve raised with respect to your beliefs (aside from something like God is mysterious or I am going to meet God one day and be sorry), then you can understand why I wouldn’t think your beliefs have much merit…

An important part of Christianity, exemplified by the idea of the Trinity and Christ’s familial relationship to the divinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — the idea of the intercessor at the right hand of God — an important part of Christianity is “my relationship to God” or “my relationship to Jesus.” It’s the idea you or I can “channel” the will of the Universe.
Plenty of people know what that means. I suppose prayer or any sort is an exercise in “channeling,” and I suppose that guilt and shame are to some degree channeling a sense of opposition to that Will — say what you will about the huge influence of parents and culture. There are in-built values, however they arrive.
Granted I do not always know which way that Wind is Blowing, so I resort to the Bible, use it as a kind of spine, a common point of reference, something other people, advisors and challengers, can share.
But if I find someone on a website is right out there channeling God, I’d be glad to know what said person is coming up with.
If it’s from the Bible, well, I know what comes from the Bible too. So.

Ellen,
If I am presenting any criticisms or any kind of disagreement, it is in one seeing the abstract concepts you suggest as being literal. For example, “an important part of Christianity is “my relationship to God” or “my relationship to Jesus.” It’s the idea you or I can “channel” the will of the Universe.”

“Plenty of people know what that means.”

In this sentence of the idea that I am quoting from (as it relates to the first quote in the first paragraph): I am not debating or mulling over “knowing” or “not knowing” what this means, but questioning the belief literally in this direct relationship with an external entity to the point of a very direct cause and effect phenomenon, e.g., I pray for God to make me prosperous in very specific ways and I am prosperous; I pray for God to prevent me from my neighbor’s flu, etc., and I remain healthy by “His Will.”

“I suppose prayer or any sort is an exercise in “channeling,” and I suppose that guilt and shame are to some degree channeling a sense of opposition to that Will — say what you will about the huge influence of parents and culture.”

This idea uses the cultural/societal influence of parenting (the kind performed by human beings, both in a biological sense, as well as that role purely as a role), as a metaphor for a person’s “relationship with God.” I consider this to be a metaphor for you, anyway. But, in the sense that it is NOT a metaphor for many (I’m talking about Fundamentalism) but a direct relationship and one wherein God is watching over and protecting us, moment to moment, act by act, almost exactly in the same way a father would his children, including direct punishments for certain behaviors, or sins, i.e., going to hell, if no repentance or absolution for that sin, I can not find much validity or even value in such an idea.

This “channeling” (during the human rituals of praying or during moments when one experiences guilt or shame) presumes that what you or many might feel or sense as being either an agreeable and pleasing behavior to a paternal, external God, or an opposition to this paternal, external God (based on your capitalization of “Will”) is something universal to the experience of being human…this I can’t agree with. This is no more universal than Freud’s Oedipus and Electra complexes; and, even as an abstraction, it views the human condition through a lens based on one’s own experiences, or the experiences of what you perceive to be a majority of people who are oriented toward Abrahamic religions. For one thing, guilt and shame, universally, are emotions, and these emotions, while it may be somewhat arguable that they are the result of societal conditioning (of course, in perhaps another blog), it is too much of a stretch to suggest with any absolute certainty that people experience these emotions out of a sense of God, in the Christian Fundamentalist sense, and even in a more abstract/symbolic Abrahamic/Western sense, as you suggest.

I am a very spiritual person, and that spirituality is not based on any semblance of a Judeo-Christian view of God. There is no sense of a paternal, distinctly-separate, external being that impacts and intervenes consciously on the natural world, in my sense of my spirituality. There isn’t even any remote view of similarity, in my sense of the universe. If I had to define God for me (I don’t even like the word God in my spirituality because it limits perception and serves to convolute and present something other than what I believe, and it puts it back in the realm you or others subscribe to), I consider “it” an energy that runs through all things that are alive. Beyond that, I can’t define “it” in verbal terms or in using written text to directly describe it; I never could do that idea justice.

I privately rejected Christianity even when I was a little boy attending church; I thought the Christian view was silly. I didn’t express my feelings, not out of guilt or shame or getting in trouble, but in a sense of not wanting to be rude to people who obviously based so much on their view of the spiritual world. I couldn’t articulate or fully understand what I was feeling or why I felt the way I did, but it was as if I had truly found myself when I got older and had precedents, so to speak, for what I felt.

I understand that others may believe something different than I, and the only part of that difference I would be inclined to criticize is when it serves to cast moral judgement on others, e.g., gays are committing sins by virtue of their sexual behaviors, people who are atheists are doomed to eternal damnation, etc. If I think someone else’ beliefs (or they think mine) are silly or illogical or something, that doesn’t hurt anyone or infringe upon their/my rights. But, if I or anyone else starts using a belief system as a way to determine moral superiority or to condemn another person for not observing the same beliefs, that is where the whole thing begins to break down. While there are certain moral ideas we can all have consensus on, often I find in people who participate in organized religion a kind of narrow definition of what is moral/immoral.

As far as spirituality itself (as you have defined it within the context of this conversation and not as it regards a view of gays in the military, “His” “Wrath,” etc.), I can only define it for myself, I can’t define it for you or david, or anyone else. I can criticize david, though, for imposing his moral view on others and their rights and respect for those rights. I can challenge and question where the logic is in his beliefs, and I only choose to do that because he is using his logic to say with a kind of certainly what God wants and doesn’t and what will happen if people do not follow the same moral compass as he and others who believe the same. I don’t have a view that others need to believe what I do or that they will come to some harm if they don’t. I see this as the difference between people who have some belief similar to mine and people who think like david.

Ellen,

It’s no longer the Holy “Ghost” since it has been accepted by linguists that the better translation from the original Greek is “Spirit,” which has been used as such by the Catholic Church since the 1960s and if at all by Protestants and secular media, for at least a generation.

It is very odd that religions (monotheistic ones anyway) set up The Unknowable, the UnNameable — no doubt it is dangerous even to mention the real name, let alone be in dialogue with — that is, without thunderbolts and so on — well, the idea that divinity is a construct of humanity (or certain awareness), and therefore as it explains in the gospels, wherever you see any person, there you see Christ. Doesn’t matter how sinful, doesn’t matter how disenfranchised.
It is not too hard to say that spirituality has a very refined expression in the gospels, though the interpretations and lexicology shifts. Religions are kin in so many ways. To slough them all off and say I’ll just say that I’m spiritual means you lose all those traditions. Well, no, they’re shared legacies. But how to make them work FOR us all, rather than against.
It’s just so weird for one human to on the one side proclaim an omnipotent unknowable God and then simultaneously to proclaim to be channeling that unknowable one, right down to specifics… (I think a fine thing to pray for is humility, by the way.)
The fact remains, we still try to listen to the universe, to transcendent truth, even with limited knowledge. Without lots of help, we have to.
But I think it is really capitulating to cite chapter and verse from thousands of years ago, just as it is capitulating morally to absorb values of 50 years ago without applying one’s own conscience. That is what a conscience is for, to stir us up. And that is what fairness and justice is all about.
If someone cedes their conscience to a church that does all the deciding for you, well, what can I say.

I know some Baptists who use “Holy Ghost,” but there you have it! Or as the British say, “Bob’s your uncle!” I remember in the 1960’s our pastor (I was Lutheran at the time) had several sermons on the matter of “Holy Ghost” vs. “Holy Spirit.” I enjoyed this very much as it kind of delineated (for me personally) a difference between a literal interpretation of the resurrected “son,” the “Almighty Father” and a more figurative/symbolic/abstract interpretation of their relationship instead of a “ghostly figure” in their “family.” The series of sermons defined the “Holy Spirit” as equal to the Father and Son. and together they create a divine trio of greater significance than a mere family. I guess many define the Trinity in the way Ellen has described, but I remember (and I haven’t thought about this for 40 years) thinking at age 13 or so, when I heard these sermons, that the “Holy Spirit” a spirit which became tangible to we mortals in the acts of crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, “Spirit” defined the relationship in a more gestalt way or in a grater sense than in the definition of a familial relationship. I didn’t ask adults what they thought, or even my older siblings, but I do remember interpreting what the pastor was saying as a greater concept than how we saw an earthbound, familial structure. “Ghost” limits the definition, in my view, as a distinctly separate entity from “Father” and “Son” and not a divine “spirit” as a result of the relationship between “Father” and “Son.” This is a more beautiful interpretation in my opinion; and, as it is analogous to a family, “Love” would be equivalent to “Spirit,” as in Father, son and “spirit” or “Love”…(just my view)

Brett, I think I used “ghost” to distinguish it from “spirit” in the sense of spirituality, knowing full well what a lot of thorny semantic argument lies therein. In the early days when Christianity was pulling apart from Judaism the fights over trinity or not trinity were profound, and continue. If someone wanted to claim “spirit” and some kind of love/faith as the essence of religious awareness, that’s fine with me. I bothered my head about those things for a couple of years in college. Now it perplexes me since I think there are real roles for religion (spirituality, however it is named) in our time, but particular churches’ members have expectations that are out of step with present reality. For instance, the government does a lot of the social functions the church use to carry on — education, welfare — it depends on what part of the world you look at. If you look at the Taliban, religion still equates to government, I think. But conversely, when our elected government makes decisions as to national defense and promulgation of democracy, there are issues of conscience as well as pragmatic ones, especially since there is a religious dimension to the conflicts.
Armed forces that reflect men and women, different ethnicities, different sexual orientations too, a force as tolerant as can be, such would be guardians acceptable worldwide, something positive, I think.
Someone will say that certain countries would refuse a protective force that included lesbians and/or gays. (Sigh.)

“Religions are kin in so many ways. To slough them all off and say I’ll just say that I’m spiritual means you lose all those traditions. Well, no, they’re shared legacies. But how to make them work FOR us all, rather than against.”

Language is indeed so inadequate, and this may be what I sense as an opposing viewpoint and it may be just semantics, but I am not so willing to apply such a broad brush (although, Ellen, I am in agreement with most of what you are saying). Historically, religions are kin and are shared legacies, but they are treated as separate, segregated beliefs that have little in common, and nothing in common in the details.

I can see what I believe in its abstract as being something akin to what my Christian “brothers” and “sisters” believe, for example, but they don’t seem to have such an abstract view toward my beliefs. I mean, I think it is a bit overblown to say I am “sloughing” any discussion or understanding among people who have some desire for spiritual pursuit among themselves and members of religious institutions. My spirituality, for one thing, is more existential than to be connected to other people in that way (although I don’t mind the intellectualization with others, as we are doing here). I also don’t feel any particular compelling responsibility to perpetuate understanding at the subjugation of my own beliefs; its just not my “cross to bear.” I believe people can readily think that I am weird or sacrilegious, or that I can think they are so; I feel it is only an issue when actions are imposed on others or are harsh judgments that become exclusionary.

Also, what I find, almost down to the individual, is that in any person who is Christian and who wishes to engage in a more abstract and philosophical discussion with people who are not Christian, in some way or another, they seem to make some kind of an argument that others are simply in denial or are bound by those same things Christians are, just that others are refusing to see it that way. It’s as if the Christian has said, “you really do believe what I do, you just don’t realize it.” Or, “you don’t believe what I do or see things my way so you are in denial or are going against harmony.” I guess from my perspective toward Christians (the non-Fundamentalist kind, mind you), what I am saying to them is “you and I may very well believe something different, and that is fine, because I can’t define that for others, only for myself.” I see these two views as different, no matter how much intellectual abstraction can try to reconcile them…so it just is. I also feel that to reconcile them (in that this reconciliation has to be to the point of a traditional view of harmony) is not necessary.

The kind of harmony that many wish to achieve on a global level of better understanding of different religions, presumes that to achieve such harmony there has to be some sort of consensus view of religion/spirituality. I don’t believe that this has to occur for there to be harmony, because we will never have a consensus view. I am not a pessimist, however, so I believe harmony can be achieved, irrespective of diverse and opposing views, as long as people with more Fundamentalist views can keep from trying to make their views dominant in dictating societal mores, including laws.

I agree with what you are saying about the government playing a role that religion once did. Unlike Bush (in his call for society to rely more on “faith-based organizations, which was really just code for, “I think social programs should be cut, and if someone has a need they should turn to their churches in their community”), as well as people like david, this is where their view of the church’s role is inadequate at best and damaging at its worst. At best, churches are great at giving the homeless a hot meal and a warm coat, but in the realm of counseling, or in identifying which among a given homeless population are mentally ill, for example…not so much. They have their roles to play, and those roles have value, just not at the exclusion or elimination of professional social programs. The church, at its worst, can interfere with a process of dignified transaction when a person seeks social service/has a social need in some form.

As between your views and mine, Brett, there seems little to no difference. My view of fundamentalists is political. I think the Republicans have an ulterior motive in keeping them in train, because they can be manipulated as a bloc, and vote reliably. So I don’t blame fundamentalism when big money probably is trying hard to keep malleable sorts in line.
I taught a Sunday school when I was 42 and 43, having a year or so in my life when I had the time, for once, and I spread my wings in many ways those years. That church didn’t get to know me too well since I was always in the basement, and I don’t think they’d want me as an “active” member in the sense of belonging to many committees and arriving at consensus on many religious and moral issues. Maybe the tenor of their will would be they want me more dependent than I am. More social. I think they wouldn’t want to know just how “social” I really am. God (circumstance) protects me from them and them from me, to some extent. Some people have a lot of time. “I care; therefore I am,” might be the creed. And I concur.

I agree about the role of churches in social programs, but it is quite complex. The churches provide shelter for the homeless, multiple meals each week for the hungry, venues for small immigrant churches that don’t have their own buildings, sites for AA and NA and so on. Churches here help run (or actually run) detox houses and safe houses. I don’t know the finances, which parts of this would be better done exclusively with government funding. Whether the dignity in the transaction is greater or lesser without the government. I know it brings the communities together to have the cranberry rummage sale in the fall, or to band together churches in providing sleeping spaces. It brings people together who otherwise would not know each other at all.
Which is a bit ironic, since it seems to me a church is a group of like-minded people, at least in some dimension. A church examining its tolerance, deciding to confront some of its prejudices/ preferences, will run into an identity crisis: We are people who self-select like thus, so how do we go about integrating more people who are not entirely like us?
Who is “us”? (One answer is to spend less time with the “us” which seems self-limiting in its like-mindedness, but if the “us” is a well-functioning team as is, then that group has hit a dilemma.)