The Chaplain's Complaint

Religious pluralism is a religion?
Sign me up. (I've been on leave of absence).

There are phrases I don't like:
"one nation under god"
"god bless America"
"god is on our side"

I think it's insulting to God to imply that he would get involved in petty nationalism and wars.
& it's disheartening that God can't stop them.

Keeping people like the Klingenschmidt working for the government (paid for with our tax money) makes it seem as though the Muslim extremists have their Jihad and the Christian extremists have their Crusade.

I so don't support this that I won't have "magnets" on my car. I don't wish bad for the troops but the whole operation stinks so I'll keep my peace signs, thanks.

Biblical literalists of the right will have a field day with this. Hordes of locusts are devouring France.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1530257,00.html

Armed militiamen are now prowling the borders in Arizona and California both. Arnold tried to pass anti-supplement legislation while earning millions off Muscle & Fitness, Flex. Stupidity, hypocrisy.

Young holiday makers have been bombed in Turkey - mostly Brits. Thanks, Bush & Blair - London police officials say it will be decades before the terrorist networks are cracked. Things have gotten worse not better since the Iraq war. 60 or so civilians killed just yesterday in Iraq in just one attack.

I'll try to be more positive - just getting my morning perspective. I need a little anger to keep focussed.

Despite Rove revelations, story of leak largely untold

White House denied links while adviser met with prosecutors

Washington -- Karl Rove had a secret.

In public, he was masterminding President Bush's re-election and brushing off suggestions he had played any part in an unfolding drama: the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame. In private, the senior White House adviser was meeting, on five occasions, with federal prosecutors to tell what he knew about the matter.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/17/MNGILDPBDU1.DTL

Newsweek has a new long expose on Rove.
Definitely worth reading:

Rove at War

In the World According to Karl Rove, you take the offensive, and stay there. You create a narrative that glosses over complex, mitigating facts to divide the world into friends and enemies, light and darkness, good and bad, Bush versus Saddam. You are loyal to a fault to your friends, merciless to your enemies. You keep your candidate's public rhetoric sunny and uplifting, finding others to do the attacking. You study the details, and learn more about your foes than they know about themselves. You use the jujitsu of media flow to flip the energy of your enemies against them. The Boss never discusses political mechanics in public. But in fact everything is political—and everyone is fair game.

continue~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600327/site/newsweek/

I have a question.

If it is the purpose of a "minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ" to "minister the gospel of Jesus Christ", is that not his job, and the reason he was placed in his position within the U.S. military? How can the government recruit "ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ" to minister to the troops, and then not expect him to do what his commitment and chosen profession dictates? A person who has made the commitment to "administer the gospel", therefore becoming a "minister of the gospel", in my opinion, has made it perfectly clear at the time he chooses his profession that that is what his purpose is. Do soldiers have access to clergy of other sects and religions? Why is this just now becoming an issue in the military, is this not the way it has always been done?

Do soldiers of the Catholic faith not have Catholic priests to minister to them, and to guide them, counsel them, and bury them if need be?

I honestly don't think it is the fault of the minister. I don't think it's fair to expect a minister to go against his deep beliefs to water down a message he considers vital to the well being of soldiers, in order to satisfy everyone. If he was employed to administer the gospel as he sees it, then he has every right to do so. Those offended don't need to attend his services.

That goes without saying, of course, that if the military is going to provide ministers of religion to the troops, to prepare them to live with the consequences of what this government is expecting them to do (often times kill other human beings), and/or preparing them to die (they have to face the fact that they could be the unfortunate one who gets his head blown off that day), that it is only fair the military should provide ministers of all faiths and religions. A clergy smorgasbord, so to speak.

The Christian religion has hundreds of thousands of sects and denominations in it. The Baptist faith has over 50,000 different branches, each one with a slightly different doctrine than the other 49,499.

I suppose the military could place "generic" ministers in it's ranks to minister to "generic" troops, but the truth is, many of the troops have a sect or denomination, or belief, or religion, that differs to one degree or another with that of his comrades.

What I'm saying is, I don't think the military should place a minister who deeply believes in his faith, and his calling, in a place where he is forced to water down his beliefs.

In my opinion, it is the military's responsibility to provide diverse ministers within it's ranks. I don't think we can blame the minister for doing his job. It often times takes deep commitment to become a minister, priest, rabbi, etc. That commitment often times comes from a deep belief that the religion, sect, or denomination the minister believes in is the only way. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Most religions teach that their religion is the truth, and the only way to make it through the pearly gates.

What is the answer? Employ "Salvation Army" type ministers who can preach and minister in a generic way? Or provide a smorgasbord of clergy to fit the needs of all?

Give me your answers after you teach me how to count, LOL.

49,499 should read 49,999. Moderator, can you fix that? This could be embarrassing.

LOL.

It won't surprise me if Rover gets off scott-free... But with all the press about the evil-doings of Rover and how he operates, I've found another opportunity to help reinforce the hypocrisy & lies of this regime.

At social occasions I've attended this weekend, Rover has been the topic of discussion. In these conversations, I casually mention how the president's top advisor and best buddy -- who helped get him into office -- is everything contrary to what the president promised us...Compassionate conservatism, Christian values, "bringing integrity back to the White House..." So what does that say about the president? Then I mention the litany of lies we've been told... Of course, I'm doing this in a calm, reasoned voice (very difficult!) so that I don't sound like I'm ranting... And it's working. They (mostly Republicans) shake their heads and say, "Yeah. This isn't what we expected..."

Madame,

Yes, that's what I am doing, too. I have sent emails to everyone who wouldn't listen to what I was saying about Rove and Bush last fall. Even to top ministers in my state.

That post someone put up last night late on the previous thread was a great one. It had the headlines of the papers of many countries across the world. I often times tell people they are not getting "real" news on Faux or CNN. They ask me how I know. I tell them because we read the news from all over the world. I loved sending that to each one of them last night.

Well, I'm off to practice my religion. The minister here is not in sync with me in all things, but he's the best I can do out here in the boonies.

I promise not to swing off the chandeliers.

Hold down the fort.

Truth Shall Prevail

I agree that the minister should practice what he believes and that he should observe whatever contract he has with the military. It is a good question to ask how the military handles this issue and whether something has changed. I don't remember stories in the past of military chaplains being exclusionary and radical.

None of my comments about religion are meant personally. I respect people who are consistent in their religion, as long as they don't push it on others. I don't believe any religious figures such as Jesus meant for people to use his teachings to condone violence or work for war machines.

I work in a religious hospital (Catholic) even though i don't practice this religion. No one preaches to me, though I do hear religious broadcasts on the intercom each morning. When I worked at camp, I wore a t-shirt with an icon of children holding hands around a cross. I do agree with the Mission Statement, I respect the Sisters (most of whom I've stood with against the war). We have Navy clients and we help them, though we don't support the war.

I could not work in an environment where people who weren't "born again" were not considered Christians. In a previous work setting, some families tride to insist on only "born again" therapists, yet they expected to accept public tax money. Someone approached my boss to complain because I wore a ring with a yin/yang symbol, which they thought was diabolic.

I am an extremist on this issue of religion and war and I don't think any minister of any religion should condone war in any way. In this way I am an idealist, a pacifist. There is alot about love in the Bible and what I most believe is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." I would be willing to make no exceptions but this would mean none at all. I would be much more impressed if I saw more Christians take this positions, as some (certainly not all) Buddhists do.

I believe that all the religions of the world are being badly violated by warmongering and violent people who make excuses for their behavior. He attacked me first. He was going to attack me. I don't like the way he looked at me. Etc. & I believe that this is wrong. I lose respect, faith and trust at this hypocritical behavior.

I don't think ministers or practitioners of any war should participate in the machine which causes death to human beings.

I consider a religion that condones and supports the war machine a hypocrisy and a travesty.

I just heard NPR - broadcast where Tutsis & Hutus in Burundi are participating in training on conflict resolution. Part of their training was to participate in exercises designed to help them see how culture can make each group see the same situation from another point of view.

In conclusion, the commentator spoke of the Belgian colonialists who came into the region and exploited tribal differences to capitalize on resources. We are doing the same thing with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurd in Oil Colony Iraq today. 90 civilians (at last count) were killed yesterday - more than in the London bombings. I do not believe this would have happened had we not participated in Oil War Iraq. This makes every "God Bless America" sign a farce. No person on this continent or in Europe is worth more than any civiilian in Iraq, Afghanistan (where we meddle) or Burundi, Darfur, East Timor (where we let genocide happen like we don't know).

What is Laura Bush doing in Africa? I'll bet it's aid with missionary strings attached. That is so wrong.

I saw a news story yesterday where Falwell met with the Bush adminsitration to pressure for socially conservative judges. That is so wrong. The administration will not listen anyway. It's better for them to have social unrest and social issues of a "moral" nature as distractions, so people won't start thinking about issues such as the economy, healthcare, education and jobs.

If this war-mongering and war preparation (pre-emptive, preventive not defensive) is being done in the name of religion and if we are sending out an Air Force that is on a Crusade, how is this different from radicals in stolen airplanes on their Jihad except that it is state-supported?

madame & truth,
ditto here.
I have spoken to a few people this weekend myself (all Repubs, my relatives & 2 neighbors).
2 things: what they are most uncomfortable with, is that this story about leaks and liars makes them equate that to Clinton (they despise/ridicule Clinton and the worse thing they want to accept is that their leader is caught lying to them. They honestly think Bu$h is a "straight shooter" and would never lie...Arghhh)

and 2) they watch fox, and only fox...but not even fox is getting top WH people out there, defending Rove, on air...its mostly hacks carrying water and its getting through to them that no one at the top of their party & in the WH is stepping up to defend or explain Rove. Except Melman, and most of them didn't even know who he was, I had to tell them he is RNC chairman (and Rove's former assistant)!! oh my!
To them, this means, if there's no Bu$h or Cheney or Rice on Faux teevee defending Rove, then maybe there's something there to hide....
To them, side-stepping & hiding behind "lawyer talk" is Clintonesque...and they can't stand that "their prez" is doing that...HA!
I'm trying to be "discreet" and not push too hard on facts, now that the door has finally opened a tiny crack, I don't want to come on too strong, with the "I tried to tell you".
Everything will depend on what Fitzgerald comes out with. They must have heard on Faux that he is a Republican govt. prosecutor, so if Fitz. hands out indictments, I know a lot of people are going to pay attention.
I'll be ready, with facts, not "Faux facts", but real facts...working to change 1 vote at a time...

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at July 17, 2005 11:16 AM

As I expressed in my piece, I think the minister's responsibility is to "suck it up", and realize that his gospel may not "everyone's" gospel, or even every Christian's or Catholic's gospel - or not serve at all.

In the military there is no freedom of speech. If you insist on speaking up after the brass has told you be to be quiet, you're insubordinate. You can end up in the stockade. That's the way that the military has always operated.

And let's be clear here. The mixing of Christianity and war already represents a deliberate distortion of Jesus' message - since he specifically instructed his followers to "turn the other cheek", and to forgive one's enemies.

Otherwise, what's to stop a more liberal or mainstream Christian minister from offering a sermon castigating biblical literalists and fundamentalists? Where does it end? You tell me? And what would any of this have to do with defending the nation?

The mixing of Christianity and war already represents a deliberate distortion of Jesus' message - since he specifically instructed his followers to "turn the other cheek", and to forgive one's enemies. - Matthew Carnicelli

Right on.

on a Sunday morning:
to borrow Al Franken's phrase:
Lies and the lying liars:

Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.

Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

continue~
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050717/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation

This was written TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO!

“This Administration has never made its case for war against Iraq. It is an unjustified war, which the Administration continues to misrepresent and exaggerate. The most recent example is the Administration's characterization of international coalition support for this war.

“This war must end now. It was unjust when it started last week, and is still unjust today. The U.S. should get out now and try to save the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens. Most importantly, ending the war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage world opinion of the United States, which has been deteriorating since the talk of war began. After all, the greatest threat to the United States at this time is terrorism, which is breeding from this war.”

Dennis Kucinich

He was right. Bush was wrong. Now thousands are dead and the blood is on the hands of those who supported and support the war. If millions all over the world could see through the shabby premises on which this war was initiated, all of us should have been able to. War is murder.

I agree there is good in Christianity and good Christians who are moral.

I believe the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. 

However:

God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). 

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). 

He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). 

In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. 

In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! 

In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

My church down the street is a "peace church" (The Brethren) are are opposed to war.

However, these scary quotes come directly from the Bible. Equally peaceful ones, such as in the Psalms, can be found. The many and varied books making up the Bible make it easy prey for vicious, egocentric "interpreters".

Murderous Fire from Heaven 
 
    Then he (King Ahaziah) sent an army captain with fifty soldiers to arrest him (Elijah).  They found him sitting on top of a hill.  The captain said to him, "Man of God, the king has commanded you to come along with us."  But Elijah replied to the captain, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and destroy you and your fifty men!"  Then fire fell from heaven and killed them all.  So the king sent another captain with fifty men.  The captain said to him, "Man of God, the king says that you must come down right away."  Elijah replied, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and destroy you and your fifty men!"  And again the fire of God fell from heaven and killed them all.   (2 Kings 1:9-12)

POWs Thrown off a Cliff
 
    Then Amaziah summoned his courage and led his army to the Valley of Salt, where they killed ten thousand Edomite troops from Seir.  They captured another ten thousand and took them to the top of a cliff and threw them off, dashing them to pieces on the rocks below.  Meanwhile, the hired troops that Amaziah had sent home raided several of the towns of Judah between Samaria and Beth-horon, killing three thousand people and carrying off great quantities of plunder.   (2 Chronicles 25:11-13 NLT)

Truth Shall Prevail

"What I'm saying is, I don't think the military should place a minister who deeply believes in his faith, and his calling, in a place where he is forced to water down his beliefs."

--I agree with this statement. I don't think the military is the place for that person with that role.

Of course, I believe in complete separation of church and state, so may never resolve this issue for myself. I also don't mean to offend anyone with any of my discussion of religion - just to point out the complexity & how it can be manipulated.

Why is it so unnerving that all "holy writings" are the works of men?

Over the centuries, the supposed "word of God" has been knowingly "interpreted" by humans to serve their own needs...not God's desires for humans to be more god-like.

When anyone claims to know the mind of God they are nothing but a heretic.

When humans in power, be they a king or queen, pope or president, despot or dictator changes the meaning of religion to suit the insecurities and purposes of mortal men is this not a lie unto itself?

Are these not the very "Transient Causes" the Founding Fathers spoke of in the Declaration of independence?

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Time for humanity to awaken to a new age of enlightenment.

Got Epiphany?

And Christian Soldiers believe God exists in the sight of their gun? In the bomblets they are dropping, in the napalm, in the phosphorus that killed and burned thousands of Iraqi's?

I am mystified by these types of events; an evangelical leader condemning soldiers that do not believe in Christ before they kill and Maim thousands of Gods Children. This is not a world war that truly was a fight for Democracy and Freedom. Iraq is the despotic act of a corrupt Administration.

Sooner or later the evangelicals will start to eat their own, as this starts to collapse in on itself...which cannot come soon enough.

"Servicemen are not segregated by religion. They defend this country, first and foremost, as Americans – not as Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, atheists, agnostics, or representatives of any other religious or intellectual persuasion."
~~Matthew Carnicelli

Matt, I remember my father telling me World War II was a major factor in breaking down existing and accepted divisions-- between soldiers and then civilians-- of different religious faiths. Divisions that were the norm before the war.

Theocracy will not take root in this country. I don't care how many BushInc supporters try and make their religion dominant. It won't.

As Tug McGraw said, "Ya gotta believe!" (And he wasn't talking about religion!)

Great piece, as always, Matt.

When anyone claims to know the mind of God they are nothing but a heretic. - Indy
Agreed!

Toolmaker
Thanks. I wasn't hoping I wasn't the heretic, to be burnt at the stake. Powerful words.

KJ
In WW2, my dad was in the Pacific and the Army was segregated by race, at least. He was a white jazz musician and tried to hang out with some of his black musician buddies & it was difficult to get together. In Little Rock Arkansas he was told to either sit away from them or get off the bus too.

Time as well as Newsweek have now done cover stories this week on Rove:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1083895,00.html

Includes timeline

Memo may hold key to CIA leak:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-memo17jul17,1,2152689.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Posted by: DiAnne at July 17, 2005 02:37 PM

Change takes time. :-) Each generation has its work to do. But, it is my opinion that time is speeding up, and the generations alive now are called to do more than previous. We are living in the 'global village' and 'the medium is the message' times as Marshal McLuhan said.

I'm not a military chaplain, but I did go through military "lay leader" training (basically for when you're deployed or out at sea and a chaplain isn't available, the lay leaders fill in), so I'll try to answer some of the questions people posed as best I can.
1. Yes, the military tries to get chaplains from a variety of faiths and denominations. This includes Catholic priests, rabbis, imams, all variety of Protestants, etc. The military does its best to recruit a wide variety of faiths but can't always get what they want (Catholic priests are in short supply) - and, of course, many units are too small to have more than one chaplain.
2. Because of #1, all chaplains are taught two things: first, that they need to really know what they believe and what they don't; and second, that they must learn as much as they can and be as accepting as possible toward those of other faiths. They are not allowed to try and convert someone from one faith or denomination to another, and they are not really allowed to proslyetize unless somebody in the military comes to them.
3. Following on that, chaplains are bound to try and find a local faith group for each military person who wants to worship. For example, many units will have a Catholic and a generic Protestant service. If a military member is, say, Jehovah's Witness, the chaplain is supposed to try and find a local group of Jehovah's Witnesses where the military member can worship if he/she wants.
4. There will inevitably be conflicts for chaplains between God/country, peace/war, and with their feelings for different religions. Chaplains are not supposed to water down what they believe but they are also not supposed to condemn anyone. Yes, this gives chaplains some difficult times!

Basically what chaplains do in the military, besides the basic mission of giving the military members the opportunity to worship as they please, is to provide a "safe haven" outside the realm of chain of command and warfighting where military members can go when they feel overwhelmed. Chaplains provide counseling, both formal and informal. They, like all military counselors, will hold everything you say in complete confidence unless you're planning to hurt yourself or others. They also provide a touch of home and a chance to relax, feel like you've got family, let down your game face. They help you deal with death and suffering when "he died for his country" isn't deep enough for you.

So to go back to Klingenschmitt, I honestly think he just isn't cut out for the chaplain corps. He doesn't really understand the way it works (nobody is expected to be a religious pluralist, for one thing; and for another, you aren't supposed to go around condemning military members, even if they are devil-worshipers), and I think he'd be happier with a regular civilian congregation. I'm not really sure how he passed the screening process to get in...unless he fudged his answers in order to get some of his seminary tuition paid (one of the benefits of joining the chaplain corps). Anyway I hope for his sake that he finds a civilian congregation to lead. Us "lay leaders" will step in to fill his shoes, gladly...

Indy,

You and I both agree. And that is exactly what I told my children about religion and the Bible. However, my "fundy" in-laws would say, 'Don't you believe in the Bible? and the Bible says...' BUT they do not recognise the Bible is written by MEN--MEN who had an agenda; therefore, this discussion becomes pointless with them because we already look at the Bible's teachings from two different viewpoints.

Veritas

It doesn't sound too different from the way they do it in prison.

Also, the USS Lincoln even had to allow a Wiccan service, I think. Then there are those whose primary interest is video games & the bowling alley.

KJ -

The man was a prophet. I am interpreting the "new media" to mean the internet, which I'm not even sure McLuhan envisioned. For anyone who may feel I'm a blasphemer or heretic because I can't buy religion supporting war, it was my Methodist minister (anti Vietnam War, in South Dakota) who turned me on to Marshall McLuhan.

"The suddenness of the leap from hardware to software cannot but produce a period of anarchy and collapse, especially in the developed countries."
The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan

"The poet, the artist, the sleuth, whoever sharpens our perception tends to antisocial; rarely 'well adjusted,' he cannot go along with currents and trends."
"... Their power to see environments as they really are."
The Medium is The Massage, Marshall McLuhan p 88

"At electric speed, all forms are pushed to the limits of their potential."
Laws of Media, Marshall McLuhan p 109

"The artist is the person who invents the means to bridge between biological inheritance and the environments created by technological innovation."
Laws of Media, Marshall McLuhan p 98

"The news automatically becomes the real world for the TV user and is not a substitute for reality, but is itself an immediate reality." 1978
Edited by Eric McLuhan & Frank Zingrone "Essential McLuhan" Routledge 1997 ISBN 0-415-16245-9 page 272.

"It is the framework which changes with each new technology and not just the picture within the frame."1955
Edited by Eric McLuhan & Frank Zingrone "Essential McLuhan" Routledge 1997 ISBN 0-415-16245-9 page 273.

"A new medium is never an addition to an old one, nor does it leave the old one in peace. It never ceases to oppress the older media until it finds new shapes and positions for them." 1964
Edited by Eric McLuhan & Frank Zingrone "Essential McLuhan" Routledge 1997 ISBN 0-415-16245-9 page 278.

Sparrow, Indy

The Bible is also made up of a bunch of books written by different men, and some contradict each other. I've also noticed that some religions, sects, etc. focus on Old Testament mostly, or New Testament mostly. Then there is the variable of how literal vs interpreted.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002386095_scotusevan17.html

Evangelicals Out for a Justice

See? Bush got over half his votes from religious fundamentalists. Yet he, like his father before him and Reagan as well, have token interest in fulfilling their social conservative demands. If they were satisfied, they might start to notice that they also need jobs, education and healthcare. They've been had.

Veritas,

Thank you! That was pretty much what I thought they did, but I wasn't sure.

I am an extremist on this issue of religion and war and I don't think any minister of any religion should condone war in any way. In this way I am an idealist, a pacifist. There is alot about love in the Bible and what I most believe is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." I would be willing to make no exceptions but this would mean none at all. I would be much more impressed if I saw more Christians take this positions, as some (certainly not all) Buddhists do.
~snip
Posted by: losing my religion at July 17, 2005 11:46 AM

LMR,

I am too. I hate violence. I hate war. If I was of age to go, and there was a draft, I would have to be a conscientous objector.

I met one of the DCP bloggers last month when she passed my way on a vacation. She leans toward the Buddhist doctrine of peace. You know how you can sense who a person is, just by the energy you feel when you are around them? This woman is one of the gentlest souls I have ever met. I told her to watch "Seven Years in Tibet" with Brad Pitt. It has marvelous scenery, and the story of the Dali Lama before Tibet was invaded and conquered by the Chinese. And that's the last time I'm going to bring that up on this blog.
~snip

I don't think ministers or practitioners of any war should participate in the machine which causes death to human beings.

I consider a religion that condones and supports the war machine a hypocrisy and a travesty.

~snip

Posted by: losing my religion at July 17, 2005 11:46 AM

LMR,

Here is where it gets a bit hairy, in my opinion. There are scriptures in the bible that say very clearly that Christians are to follow the laws of their land, and their government leaders, the people in authority over their land. Now, before everyone here jumps on me for this, lol, it also says plainly that the ones in authority bear the biggest responsibility, and it is on their heads big time if they abuse their power and authority. Now, I don't consider myself to be breaking any laws, or going against any government authority when I peacefully protest wrongdoing. My government, is We The People, is it not? It is the corporate governing ability and power of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, is it not? And isn't that exactly why the founders and framers set it up that way? I am not breaking any laws of man or God when I educate myself about politics, and, as an activist, do what I can to motivate others and be active myself. I still have a constitutional right to be part of making a difference, and protecting and defending our government the best I can in my situation. The way it is worded in the bible is that if soldiers are ordered to war by their commanders, they are not to blame, and not held responsible by God for any killing they commit while under orders from a commander. Does that mean that that becomes an easy answer, and should be taken lightly? I don't think so.

My pastor uncle and I went around and around about this a few weeks ago. As a matter of fact, (oh, you are gonna love this one), we were talking about abortion, the war, the Dems and Republicans, the left and the right. He is still adamant that he could not vote Dem because he sees abortion as murder. So I threw the crimes of the Neocons in, and asked him how he felt about the killing and murder of innocent civilians in Iraq. I asked him if it was not murder, along with the killings of the soldiers on both sides of the war. He hee-hawed around a bit, and said "No, murder is murder. War is not murder, it is killing, and the bible makes that distinction. I didn't agree with him, but that is how he sees it. He also said he would have no problem whatsoever having his twenty-something daughter go over and take the risk of being killed in action in this war in Iraq, because she would be following what God said to do in the bible, which was obey those in authority over her in government. Now, I know he wouldn't be able to do that, he can't even trust her in God's hands long enough to let her grow up and be independent here in America. People sure can be as$e$ sometimes.

For anyone who may feel I'm a blasphemer or heretic because I can't buy religion supporting war, it was my Methodist minister (anti Vietnam War, in South Dakota) who turned me on to Marshall McLuhan.

Posted by: DiAnne at July 17, 2005 03:53 PM

I certainly don't. I would like to add to what I said previously about being an advocate of war vs. not.

I am not an advocate of war to buoy an economy, provide wealth and power to the greedy and power hungry. But, I honestly think, if I was given the choice in a situation where to not fight and support a war meant being passive in the face of impending doom and harm to our country, (if our country was genuinely threatened by an oppressor who wanted to come in and harm us), I would choose to fight. That is saying, however, that it was a war started for that reason, and not a conjured up farce.

Truth,
Your comment reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend a while ago--she, too, is a serious Christian, and even though she has had some very bad experiences with fundamentalist Christian cults, her faith is rock solid. She voted for Bush, because "he is a true Christian."

It is all I can do to stop myself from quoting scripture about false faiths and those who hide behind the bible...

She would agree with your uncle that abortion is murder and killing in war is not. She is not a personally judgemental person at all; she has great compassion and generosity for individuals, but I have such a hard time with her hardline rigid beliefs and positions.

I wish that your uncle and my friend could actually go to Iraq and see what is happening there. I want them to go to Guantanamo too--and speak with those held there, without the moderating of the government. I want everyone who voted for Bush to see into the White House dicussions where people of faith are being used for the corporate ends of profiteers, and deal-making, blackmail, and character assassination are the order of the day. I want this so badly I can taste it.

I pray every day for Toto to pull the string, and raise the curtain on these charlatans.

"The man was a prophet."
Posted by: DiAnne at July 17, 2005 03:53 PM

I completely and totally agree. :-)

In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

Posted by: losing my religion at July 17, 2005

12:17 PM

Dear Losing (lol),

The old testament is supposed to be about the law given to the Jews before Christ (not that any of you didn't know that) along with plenty of the wrath of God, and the new testament is supposed to be about love, grace, and disolving of the necessity to perform rituals in order to get forgiven by God for your trespasses. In the old testament they did alot of rituals and complied with a pretty strict set of rules (many man made too), and the doctrine is: the sacrifice of Jesus gave mankind grace, forgiveness, new chances, alot of love, and did away with the need to do the rituals and observe all those laws because the price is believed to have been paid by Jesus upon his death.

I avoid the old testament. My reason is because it is, to me, so very full of wrath, and begettings and slewings that it puts a damper on my spirit. I have been through the new, and can get into it because it is, to me, a positive message.

I couldn't even tell you how many people God slew in the old testament, because to me the message in the new testament is a whole 'nother game, to me.

Well, I think I put enough "to me's" in that last post.

I never thought of it perhaps being offensive to people of the Jewish faith, and other's also like Seventh Day Adventists.

I was saying that "for me" I don't like reading about the wrath of God. Could be because of my Catholic upbringing, and it seemed like we focused alot on that in Catechism. Whatever any else believes is fine with me, I was really only trying to explain how I deal with the slewings and slayings.

Karen,

Keep praying for Toto to pull up that curtain, sistah. I'm right beside you.

I have gotten to the point where whatever the relatives want to think doesn't rattle me. In fact, my uncle and I just ended that conversation that night with a good hearty laugh. Actually, and this is nothing against any political party, he said he would vote Dem if it were not for abortion, and if the Dems would be more organized. I have been telling him for a YEAR now about Karl Rove, and my other relatives here too (my mom and dad and siblings and kids are all Dems), and now when they whine I say calmly, "Yes, that is what I was mentioning a while back." My other auntie is upset because her medicare co-pays are going way up, I told her she could thank Bush's Medicare plan for that. She said "I know." She wouldn't have admitted it a year ago. Oh........get this......she is really upset about (I think OTV mentioned this) the White House stonewalling this thing with Rove. It indeed makes them look like they have something to hide. She was very angry about it the other day, to the point of being disgusted. She said "Yeah, and the dumb White House is staying totally mum on it".

As far as my uncle goes, Karen, I agree with you completely. I believe these narrow minded view points are largely a result of the controlled press and media here in the U.S. He was raised down in Alabama, (thinks Martin Luther King was a trouble maker), raised in a strict denominational fundamentalist church, and married a gal that was too. They won't let a drop of wine touch their lips, and until the last thirty years didn't go to movies, dance, or wear make up. I have given up on trying to change them. His wife is very aware of the corruption in the Bush administration, and isn't sure how she is going to vote next time because of the abortion issue.
I have sent them emails about Rove (actually they are quite interested in Rove, I have talked to them quite a bit about him and his role), and I even called them one night last week, and talked to my uncle, and said "Remember Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, the man who makes the domestic policies as well as some foreign policies, in the White House? Remember what kind of a guy I told you he was? Well, it sounds like he may be in serious trouble now. Be sure to catch all the news about him that's coming out, it's on every channel." He said "Oh, yeah? Okay, sure. I sure will. Thanks."

I follow this farm slogan with them: "Don't argue with a pig. You'll only get yourself muddy, and make the pig mad."

Oh, and Karen!

It is going to be something if and when Bush doesn't appoint an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court.

It's going to burst alot of bubbles among the religious right. I'll be right there with the hankies, explaining why they never should have voted for him in the first place.

Gawd, I beg you with all begness to help me do it with at least a "semblence" of humility! LOL.

Someone posted upthread about the fundies having fits and demanding they get their payday with this appointment. In order to not nominate a strong conservative, I am looking for the Bush administration to find a way to pin it on the Dems. They will want to make it look like our fault if he nominates a moderate. Keeps the RR hanging on for better luck next time.

I don't know if this has been posted previously or not, but since it seems to be (semi) on topic:

AP- Jackson, Miss-
A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.
"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith" Bethany's state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money, and emotional energy. ____________
The article goes on to state that this is an agency that's nationwide, based in Grand Rapids Michigan, and has 75 offices in 30 states. The office in Jackson, Miss. is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of America. It also states that "Bethany is one of 24 adoption and pregnancy counselling centers in Mississippi that receives money from the sale of Choose Life tags, a special plate that motorists can obtain with an extra fee. "
My state, Florida, also sells the "Choose Life" plates, and they annoy me every time I see one of them. I am not necessarily pro-abortion in every situation, but if a choice has to be made in choosing the life of the mother or her unborn child, I'd choose to save the mother's life every time. I wonder how many good Catholics in Mississippi realize that some of the agencies that are receiving the money they've spent for their license tags do not consider Catholicism a Christian religion? I wonder if they'd choose the license plates if they did.

"he said he would vote Dem if it were not for abortion, and if the Dems would be more organized".

IF, IF. I agree with uncle on this part! I am hoping that Howard Dean is thinking organizationally and not egoistically!

Actually, I think they were more organized this last time around than in prior years, but the shock of eight years of neglect of local-state level organization was sudden and devastating.

On the old testament thing--I was taised Jewish and even had a Bat Mitvah, where I read from the book of Deuteronomy, gave a little speech I had written myself, etc. I was struck by the negativity even at the tender age of 13--nowadays, when we have Jewish celebrations, I put the blood and retribution into metaphoric terms, and emphasize the lessons therein. The Festival of Lights--Chanukah--is, to me, about the miracle of light in the darkness, more so than it is a victory celebration. Passover is about taking back the power from the powerful, and the miracle of that empowerment to effect social change.

ANd that' my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at July 17, 2005 05:42 PM

"A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith.""

Now, isn't that special. It's good to know that old fashioned religious bigotry is alive and well.

By the way, if you browse the binary newsgroup alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.christian, you can download a lecture series entitled:

Islam: The Satanic Religion Exposed

Methinks 100% of downloaders of this title voted for Dubya in 2004.

Matt,

Re:
"As I expressed in my piece, I think the minister's responsibility is to "suck it up", and realize that his gospel may not "everyone's" gospel, or even every Christian's or Catholic's gospel - or not serve at all."

His gospel may not be "everyone's" gospel, true, but any minister of the Christian religion bases his beliefs on certain perspectives. And, the Christian religion widely teaches that if you believe in Jesus you don't go to hell, and if you don't you do. I agree that it is not fair nor wise to force this opinion down people's throats, but when asked by the U.S. Armed Forces to perform the duties of a minister of the Christian faith among the soldiers, I think one of the main duties of that minister is to perform religious ceremonies and traditions, such as funerals, weddings, counseling, etc. In the case of the minister in your article, both Roman Catholics and protestants of almost every denomination believe that belief in Jesus Christ is essential to making it past the pearly gates. How could this minister have "sucked it up" and ministered generically, to everyone present including agnostics, athiests, and people of religions not Christian, and still be performing his duties, which are to perform a "religious" ceremony? Without mentioning the principles of his religion?
Help me here.

You know what you do with me, Matthew? At least this is what always happens when I argue with you.... I start off arguing, until I argue myself right out of my position, LOL.

I'm sticking with this one. So far.

Re:
"And let's be clear here. The mixing of Christianity and war already represents a deliberate distortion of Jesus' message - since he specifically instructed his followers to "turn the other cheek", and to forgive one's enemies."

To me, to fight and even kill in self defense might be okay. And to defend your country. Truly defend your country.

People often picture Jesus as being a milque-toast kinda wimpy guy. I know he got good and angry sometimes, and threw over the money changers' tables when they tried to profit in the temple courtyard. My idea of "turning the other cheek" (and you have convinced me, Matt, that this is relative, not absolute) is to not hate, to not want evil to come upon the person who inflicted harm or injury upon you. It is to not plot pure revenge. It is to hope and pray that, for the good of that person, he or she will put down their wicked ways and turn to more loving, constructive actions and attitudes. If and when they do not, I don't personally see anything wrong with being ok, if not a bit jazzed, when they have to pay the piper when the time comes for justice. It is, also, IMO, not returning insult for injury. But I don't see "turning the other cheek" as not protecting and defending yourself and your property and country.

I think it is good to stick up for yourself. The bible says "Love your neighbors as yourself." Not "Love your neighbors instead of yourself." Good self esteem is essential. You can't reach out of a pit and try to help your brother on his way without pulling him into the pit with you.

Re:
"Otherwise, what's to stop a more liberal or mainstream Christian minister from offering a sermon castigating biblical literalists and fundamentalists? Where does it end? You tell me? And what would any of this have to do with defending the nation?"

It has nothing to do with defending the nation. I imagine the clergy was originally put there to help the morale. I don't think most ministers tell their boys to get in there and kill and not worry about it. They probably do a big service just listening. Listening to their homesickness, fears, doubts, anger, sorrow at losing comrades.

I don't know where it all ends. But there has to be an answer. Expecting a minister from one sector of an entire religion to be sure his sermon in a burial service is generic so as to not offend anyone doesn't quite do it for me. Any more than anyone would expect a rabbi, priest, or minister to perform a generic wedding ceremony.

Since Tom DeLay and Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robertson "have all the answers" maybe we should make them get in there and show us how it is done. They can't be inclusive and tolerant and non-bigoted on any given day, including Nov. 3rd, wonder how they would do with shrapnel flying past their rear-ends.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at July 17, 2005 06:23 PM

I think Vertias put it perfectly.

Posted by: Veritas at July 17, 2005 03:34 PM

ROVE WAS FIRST SOURCE ON CIA AGENT -TIME REPORTER

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-17T204909Z_01_N17212544_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

I wonder how many good Catholics in Mississippi realize that some of the agencies that are receiving the money they've spent for their license tags do not consider Catholicism a Christian religion? I wonder if they'd choose the license plates if they did.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at July 17, 2005 05:42 PM

The only time some of those "christians" consider Catholicism a Christian religion is on voting day. If you don't believe me, ask Jeb, and Brotha Bush. Jeb didn't have any trouble kissing that ring on the Pope, even if Georgie and Karl sent him to represent the valued Catholics in America. Oh, yes.....and on "Save Terri Schiavo Live Telecast" week, too. They were all brotha's that week.

Posted by: aimzzz at July 17, 2005 06:34 PM

Oh, boy.

Mr. Bush, what did you know and when did you know it?

Why did you particpate in a cover-up to protect your guru?

ROVE WAS FIRST SOURCE ON CIA AGENT -TIME REPORTER

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-17T204909Z_01_N17212544_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

ROVE WAS FIRST SOURCE ON CIA AGENT -TIME REPORTER

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-17T204909Z_01_N17212544_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

ROVE WAS FIRST SOURCE ON CIA AGENT -TIME REPORTER

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-17T204909Z_01_N17212544_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA agent, the reporter said in an article on Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

The leak of the agent's identity has sparked a criminal probe, and several Democrats have urged President Bush to fire or sideline Rove, Bush's top political adviser.

Cooper wrote that Rove did not disclose the woman's name, Valerie Plame, but told him in July 2003 that information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson.

"Don't get too far out on Wilson," Cooper quoted Rove as saying. Cooper said he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wilson took a CIA-funded trip in 2002 to investigate a charge that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, and later accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the Iraqi weapons threat in its case for war.

"So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper wrote in Time's current edition.

"When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me," Cooper wrote.

He said he was uncertain what Rove meant by commenting he had already said too much.

COURT ORDER
Cooper testified about Rove to avoid going to jail. New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to testify.

It is against the law for a government official to knowingly expose a covert CIA agent.

Columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity in July 2003, citing two administration officials, shortly after Wilson published an opinion piece in the New York Times that accused the administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

Wilson wrote that in Niger he could not substantiate allegations Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials, as the White House asserted even after the mission.

Cooper also reported on Plame's identity, citing Novak's column and administration officials.

Wilson accuses the Bush administration of retaliation in his wife's exposure; Rove's lawyer said the aide had done nothing wrong and was not an investigation target.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, on NBC's "Meet the Press," called criticisms of Rove "partisan smears."

Bush has said he would fire any leaker in the case, but said last week he would withhold judgment on Rove's role.

Cooper wrote he had previously told the grand jury he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. He said he asked Libby about Wilson's wife playing a role in the Niger trip, and Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

Rove used similar language in a conversation with Novak, according to media reports. Wilson had written that he took the trip in response to questions raised by Cheney, but he told CBS's "Face the Nation" he had not meant to imply Cheney sent him.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in October 2003 that Rove, Libby and another official had assured him they were uninvolved in the leak.

Cooper said he viewed Rove's comments on Wilson as an attack on his credibility. "I thought it was disparaging toward Wilson. I thought it was sort of guiding," he said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

(Additional reporting by Peter Szekely)

Karen,

I really am interested in all things pertaining to your faith. Thanks for sharing a bit with us tonight.

off the Religious topic, I wonder if others listened to Matt Cooper this morning on Meet the Press.
Perhaps other can post the exact quote but Cooper said something that caught my attention, paraphrasing, Rove told Cooper I've told you too much and things that can probably get me in trouble. Cooper's statment to Russert that that statement by Rove has haunted him for 2 years seems to me to indicate an admission by Rove of Legal Sienter, Knowledge, that Rove knew that what he was telling Cooper was illegal, an element of any potential criminal prosecution.
Did other's pick up on that statement or am I reading too much into it?
I really would like to read an explanation of why Novak is neither a target or of special interest to Fitgerald. Either Novak has been given transactional immunity or is playing some sort of legal game with the Grand Jury.

OOPS!--Didn't mean to double-post the title above (tho it is worth a couple of jumps up & down). I wonder how BushCo plans to destroy this guy's character?

Well, Truth, my own take on the Jewish religion would not fly with some of the more "obedient" Jews I know! ;)

But then, Ialways liked a good metaphoric tale...

NPR summary of Cooper's interviews
audio link

'Time' Reporter: Rove, Libby Disclosed CIA Agent's Name
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=17-Jul-2005&segNum=3&mediaPref=RM&getUnderwriting=1

Whoa-- I didn't just double post the title- I multiposted. Sorry, sorry, sorry! blush

Posted by: Karen at July 17, 2005 06:50 PM

All things transitory are but as symbols sent.
The insufficient, here grows to event.
The indescribable, here it is done.
The eternal feminine leads us on.

- Goethe, Faust, Part II, Final Chorus

Cooper said he viewed Rove's comments on Wilson as an attack on his credibility. "I thought it was disparaging toward Wilson. I thought it was sort of guiding," he said on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Posted by: aimzzz at July 17, 2005 06:42 PM

Isn't that a bit like Bonnie saying Clyde was "sort of guiding" her into borrowing money when she helped him commit robbery?

"All things transitory are but as symbols sent"
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at July 17, 2005 07:19 PM

fyi Matt, that is a header on a poem of mine titled "Prima Materia." Except I used the translation "All things transitory are meant for us as symbols."

just fyi. the phrase caught my eye. LOL

Happy Sunday and good night. @;-)

Truth Shall Prevail
Thanks for the information on religion - valuable concepts for me about the difference between the Old and New Testament, which seem like completely different eras. Also interesting to try to get into the mindset of how some differentiate between "murder" and "killing."

If I were to consider war like football - (two sides, evenly matched & they have a grudge - both sides have similar weapons, economies, follow orders, have similar training, and rules and layout of the game is known - it's clear when someone "wins" (takes over land, whatever) - then maybe I could get behind the "killing" part. & only those who signed up, knowing what they were getting into and what they were fighting for, would run the risk of being killed.

But it's not like that. We are bigger, have more technologically sophisticated weapons. We initiated the war, though some argue that Saddam was acting up or had weapons or harbored terrorists or that the Iraqi people simply needed to be liberated.

& civilians are killed. To me, if I went shopping at Safeway and had my baby in a stroller & she was blown up because some "warfare" spilled over onto private property (store or market), it would be "murder," not just killing. If someone in my family were held without charges and tortured, I would not just see it as a simple part of the game.

I think some gullible, brainwashed people assume a "link" between 9/11 and whatever our dear Leader has going on "over there" - simply because 9/11 was the first time something that tragic happened on our soil since Pearl Harbor. Some have the desire for vengeance, retaliation, justice. & that is used as an excuse for "killing."

I just think it's completely wrong to refuse to vote Democrat because of the abortion issue and just ignore it when unborn babies are "killed" in warfare, as when pregnant civilians die. I don't see where the latter is more "moral" because of some geopolitical mess is going on that our country is involved in.

& who in the hell has been "liberated" in any phase of this?! I really can't think of anyone.

My husband is reading a long New Yorker article on what's going on at Guantanamo. It's basically an "experiment" & rules are being broken that the US has agreed to since the Nuremberg Trials and Geneva Convention. This is "moral"?!

I cry for this country.

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at July 17, 2005 06:33 PM

Thanks Matt! I'm glad I was able to be of help in this conversation.

Today is Sunday, and I'd like to talk about my own religious beliefs on this day. One of the reasons I want to talk about them is that I feel, since moving to the United States, Ithat have had to suppress my beliefs, and try to pretend that I believe things that I now, after years of searching and reading and learning, could never believe.

I don't believe that Jesus died on the cross to save my soul or so that my sins could be forgiven. I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I'm not sure I even believe he lived - many scholars dispute that so-called fact. I don't believe that God spoke through the men who wrote the Bible. I don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet sent by God. I don't believe the Christian myth, the Scientology myth, the Buddhist myth, the Hindu myths or the Native American myths. To me, they're all the same, myth. This is all part of my religious faith.

My faith is this: There may or may not be "a god" and if there is one, it is surely nothing like any god conceived by man. If there is a god, it is far greater and more universal than anything man has invented through his mythology.

My faith is important to me. In many ways, I'm a very spiritual person. Some would question how that can be so when I don't buy into any of the current prevailing myths. I say to you, the spirit is part of the whole universe, the unending world of experience and matter; the joy, the uplifting wonder of the spiritual experience, is not dependent upon belief in any myth. It is possible without "belief" and after going through many different mythologies, my opinion is that without belief, the spiritual experience is more breathtaking than imaginable.

I realize that I may be banned from the blog for speaking such blunt heresy. But I want to encourage others like me who have been silent too long throughout this dark night of man-made gods and spiritual persecution. We must speak up. People don't know we're here.

I am not a christian. I am not a muslim. I am not a jew. I am that old fashioned term, a child of the universe. I live in wonder, in questions, not in answers. The questions give me profound joy.

Amy,

Surely, we do not ban people from this blog based on beliefs! We hope people will not insult each other, but all beliefs and pursuasions are welcome.

Wouldn't be much of a dialogue otherwise...

Posted by: Karen at July 17, 2005 09:01 PM

Ah, but can you accept a faith that says ALL "beliefs" are equally mythology? A faith that says there are no true beliefs? A faith that says "I have no belief and yet I am spiritual"?

Ah, but can you accept a faith that says ALL "beliefs" are equally mythology? A faith that says there are no true beliefs? A faith that says "I have no belief and yet I am spiritual"?

Posted by: Amy at July 17, 2005 09:09 PM

Sure.

One's belief in a higher power (or not) is a fundamental natural right.

No one can read onother's mind and discern faith or true belief in anything...

It is a personal journey...life...one that we get back only as much as we put into it.

Many find comfort in believing in the mythology, the history, the story-telling of days long past...it brings them security and feelings of beloging and purpose.

Many choose to question the world with wide eyed wonderment, as though through the eyes of a child...

I'll choose wide eyed wonderment anyday...

"Some people say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one...I hope some day you'll join us and the world will live as one."
~John Lennon

Amen Brother John...Amen.

"To me, if I went shopping at Safeway and had my baby in a stroller & she was blown up because some "warfare" spilled over onto private property (store or market), it would be "murder," not just killing. If someone in my family were held without charges and tortured, I would not just see it as a simple part of the game."

Posted by DiAnne.

I see the war this way: We were out on the playground, and this bully (Saddam) was calling us names, and saying that he was going to "get us." His brothers and sisters and cousins were all standing around him, but they all thought he was a jerk.

Meanwhile, someone from the school down the street came by and punched out a bunch of kids in the playground. They all got punched out too, but they still have friends out there somewhere.

In response, our leaders all pointed fingers at Saddam over in another corner and screamed that we all needed to lynch him and all his relatives and friends. They got all the kids all whoooped up and filled us all with fear and violence and gave us big sticks and rocks and said we should all attack Saddam et al with a vengence. And so we did. We killed over 100,000 innocent bystanders and all Saddam's friends and relatives because the bullies from down the other street attacked us, and our leaders said we should therefore turn around and attack someone else.

Now that's leadership.

"Some people say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one...I hope some day you'll join us and the world will live as one."
~John Lennon

Amen Brother John...Amen.

Posted by: Indy at July 17, 2005 09:14 PM

Amen. Let's not hold our breath, though, okay?

Amy,

I live with many people of various persuasions, including the spiritual-but-not-religious one. Dick occasionally claims he's an animist at heart.

Amy

When John first go to know Yoko, he went to her gallery opening in Soho. One of her conceptual pieces was a ladder. He climbed up the ladder and looked and saw the word "Yes."

We saw the Yoko Ono Retrospective show at the SF Museum of Modern Art. We all bought refridgerator magnets that said "War Is Over .. If You Want It" - if enough people wanted it, it would be.

As far as your religious beliefs, I belief the master of the universe is bigger than all of this. I think it's like a sin to believe he is on the side of a country. I believe we are embroiled in sort of a Holy War at the same time we are reduplicating colonialism patterns that were happening in Europe 500 or so years ago, and that Iraq, the Oil Colony is also entering a Civil War and this has spiraled out of our control. Terrorism can increase as there are more hiding places and more recruiting grounds.
& this is the work of man, not God.

amy why would you think you would be banished for speaking your beliefs, that is almost as silly as others who think I come here to censor their political thoughts. Your religious beliefs are personal to you, and while many here including myself have bgt into many of those religious myths, what you believe is what you believe and none of us here I feel would question your sincerety. I think you might have us confused with the philosophy of the Republican web sites (just kdding of course). Personally I empathazize with your comment, b/c at times I have been made to feel defensive about my political thoughts and posts for fear of stepping on someone's toes, but my feeling is that's too bad,I don't come here to just preach to the choir, as long as we are not being offensive here.
Personally much like John Kerry I don't much like to talk about my religious believes b/c my spirituality is shared at my home with my family and at my place of worship and I don't much like anyone, especially my government telling me what is appropriate religious belief. I know that it is fashionable and necessary to discuss religion at political sites but I just don't much go for the mixing of the 2. Here in Houston Lakeland Church just opened up a 30,000 seat arena at the old Houston Rockets location and of course our Governor was on stage at their opening. That's fine but personally I was happier to see the Rockets play there and would prefer that Jessie Jackson, Bush and Rick Perry all stay away from the religious pulpit, but unfortunately those days are long gone.

Amy, there was a time when meadows were churches. Waterfalls, mountaintops and the beach was a church. Humanity did not build multi million dollar buildings nor accumulate multi billion dollar organizations to promote their belief. We gathered, we thanked God, and we made sure our neighbor had food to eat and a fire to keep warm. We did not give God a Name, we simply acknowledged the existance of something bigger than ourselves.

Today religion is a business, a political movement, an avenue to promote attrocities in the name of God. Religion has become a Tool, not a belief.

One day it will stop. People will not allow their leadership to condemn an entire nation to promote their oil and gas interests, or condemn their sons and daughters to death and mutilation in the futile effort to establish an American Empire. The faithfull will not allow their beliefs to be manipulated any longer.

Churches will fall, governments will be cleaned out, and we will look at each other as children of God once again.

I attended the memorial service for Andy Stephenson, who lived in Seattle & who was recognized nationally for his activism on behalf of voting integrity, i.e. no electronic voting machines, and his research on the stolen 2004 election. I met him at the election reform conference I attended in Nashville. He died of cancer at the age of 42. William Rivers Pitt gave the eulogy.

Rove CIA Leak Source, Reporter Says

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/18/america/rove.php

Business people travelling will be reading this wherever they are, especially Europe.

The Time & Newsweek that are on the internet will hit the stands.

No matter what happens, our current administration will be viewed as a seat of corruption.

As in Europe, US Anti-Immigrant Movement Spreads

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5148313,00.html

Despite the terrorism threat, to be suspicious of immigrants in general is not that different than Ku Klux Klan or neoNazi mentality.
More and more states have vigilante groups, & in Europe politicians such as Le Pen have more followers than one would want to believe. Fear tactics - "law and order" - meaning curtailing of civil rights & pitting groups against each other - not the way to make us safer.

sorry toolmakere but your post is a little dark for me.
"Today religion is a business, a political movement, an avenue to promote attrocities in the name of God. Religion has become a Tool, not a belief."
I agree that religion has unfortunately become a big business for many, but to lump them all together and say they 'promote attrocities' is to condemn at least 1/2 the world's population who are believers. I know that Bill Maher is always joking about how evil religion is but I believe there are millions of sincere religious people like Jimmy Carter who truly lives his religion and a fine Lutheran family (H and W are both ministers),I stayed with in Denver last Oct and Nov. who work each day to make this world a better place, so I am sorry, I just can't buy that line that 'all' religion is evil and promotes attrocities. We have a bloggerin Az I believe his name is battleBob, haven't heard from him in a while, who works tirelessly in his nieghborhood soup kitchen. I don't know his religious beliefs but I bet he would righteously and correctly consider himself to be a good Christian.I was offended to see Lakeland Church here locally spend over $100 million on their new building and still wonder why we have tax exempt status for churches, who quite often circumvent the intent of that IRS reg.

Re the religious discussion:

I find Megachurches and Megamalls approximately the same. I know there are good religious people separate from the profit motive. My read of the last few po$t$ $upport$ the offenSiveness of the Megachurche$$. I work for a Catholic Hospital and we do good work as secular employees (meaning those who are neither priests nor nuns and who may not be Catholic or even Christian).

Elizabeth,

I never met him though I watched the D.U. fund drive for him. I admire him and the people who helped Andy in his last months.

May Andy's spirit live on in all of us today as we continue his fight for election reforms.

its Lakewood, not Lakeland Church, but the bottom line is that that expenditure of over $100 million dollars for a new church building is obscene and exactly what toolmaker meant when he referred to churches as big businesses.That is not what religion means to me.

Ira,

I didn't see any shows, but did you check for a transcript?

Also, ANYBODY, can you please sum up what is happening in this treason-gate now? Cheney's staff too? Does this lead to Bush?

I'm not able to surf the net and find the facts so I need the reader's digest version including translations "for dummies" becuase that's about all I can handle right now.

Thanks!

Posted by: Amy at July 17, 2005 08:49 PM

Amy,

As I suggested with my Goethe quote earlier in the evening...

All things transitory are but a parable.

My own view is that God is beyond all human understanding, and the existing world religions are parables for the unknowable.

Still, I would argue that each of these traditions do have power - since the Cosmos does not inspire a myth, and then abandon it. And some of these teachers have had profound things to say about the human experience, and this wisdom transcends any myth.

One thing Christianity always gives us is the ability to choose. We can decide to go to war in the name of one God or other. We can decide to kill innocent people in the name of one God or another. It is wrong to blame religion. The fault is with us.
I have a lot of problem with taking the Old Testament literally. It was written for a more primitive audience then the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God is not seen directly. He is a burning Bush or a cloud. It was a very trying time and people survived by killing others.
The New Testament is for a more socially advanced time. Jesus is visible and performs many miracles. There is a lot written about many people performing miracles. Many prophets died. Jesus is the only one to rise from the dead. This sets Christianity apart from other movements.
I really get angry when the TV preachers say something like ‘send money and I’ll pray for you’ (saw this over July 4th). That is the last thing Jesus would do.

Good lively blog posts today.

Amy, of course you are welcome here. What makes us belong here is our desire to see America survive this blight of corrupt selfish leadership. I honestly think no less of anyone here if they don't share my personal religious beliefs, and I mean that.

I sent an email to a fellow blogger this evening, and said I feel kind of like I am dominating the thread too much when there is a religious topic. I don't mean to, it's just that when the discussion is leaning toward the topic of Christianity and the abuses of it these days, it is an area I know a little about, since I have been involved in it thirty years to one degree or another.

I believe it was Karen once who said the DCP has people of many religions, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic, Athiest. This, as you know, is not a religious social club. What bonds us together is our deep desire to make a difference in our nation, in the quality of life we and our children, and our neighbors and friends, and the rest of the world too, has in the future. I see this administration as one that has devoured and been destructive and killed alot of things already - hopes, some dreams, dignities, life styles, protections, opportunities, the list is far too long to mention them all. It has already affected us all. And I also see them as the kind of vultures who swoop down and pick the bones clean of it's victims.

I want to learn as much as I can, and do as much as I can. It may not be as much as someone else with more knowlege and experience under their belt, and a location more conducive to being able to enter into joint causes. But I will do what I can. During the past election, we all remember how busy we were as part of the phone bank, and we contributed money and time, sent letters, etc.

We all have bonded here because spiritually we all are good, deep human beings with the capacity to know, and to care, and to be willing to try to do something about it. If you missed Karen's thread where she had as the article header "The Activists Prayer", please go back a couple threads or days and look at that prayer. You are part of us, and I am glad you're here.

Ira or others,

Here's some legal stuff. Is this correct?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1935550

This article from the WP on Sept 28, 2003 points to Tenet being the senior official as he is the source in some of the rest of the article. On the record, off the record. Tenet had access to the CIA internal investigation of the Plame case and so would have known these facts and clearly had motive, being blamed for the WH for everything.

If so, that would explain his resignation in June 2-3 2004. And it means there is a Deep Throat II, as informed as Mark Felt, the original Deep Throat, was in Watergate. Bush and Cheney are then in Deep Shit if Tenet is Deep Throat II, no?

Tenet could confirm the extent of the damage done by blowing the Brewster-Jennings cover as would Deputy Pavitt, and we know they both testified and would have brought this up. Are we not looking at then the Espionage Act, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice and not mere perjury or the Intelligence Identities Act?

Are we not then looking at the cataclysmic implosion of the Bush/Cheney Nightmare, saved by CIA Director George Tenet and our Republican hero: Patrick Fitzgerald?

From the Sept 2003 WP:

-snip-

The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic... ¬Found=true

If Tenet and Pavitt are blowing the whistle on Brewster Jennings as well as the Niger Forgeries and the other pushbacks from the WH Iraq Group, including Bolton fighting the INR people over Niger and so on, don't you think this will be worse than Watergate?

Prediction based on Tenet being Deep Throat II: We could be looking at not just Rove's indictment in the next two weeks, as Cooper told the Grand Jury the July 11 conversation was not about welfare reform, and that Rove mentioned "this would be declassified soon" and especially "I've already said too much". We could be looking at multiple indictments under the Espionage Act that also involves Bush and Cheney.

These indictments will include the full damage done to Brewster Jennings, possibly including the loss of agents and informants. This sort of thing is actually always handled through the low bar of the Espionage Act. Libby will be indicted--along with Cheney--and Bush will be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. Based at least on the President trying to coverup Rove's involvement through McClellan, if not Tenet dropping the dime on him.

The VP does not get impeached--he can just be ind