Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Idolis Nov 05, 2010 2:36:38	Okay a lot a threads were locked before I could post my two cents and from my understanding, they were locked because of the way the subject was being discussed and not the actual subject itself, which to my understanding are banned topics but wind up being discussed anyway. Anyway... I've never served in the military but my father did and my little brother has made a career out of it. Recently, the subject of Kosovo was brought up. My brother served during that conflict. He's also served three tours in Iraq and is fixing to go to Afganistan. From what I understand, America went to Bosnia to put a stop to ethnic cleansings that were going on. Some of these ethnic cleansings were taking place in Muslim neighborhoods and for the most part we were welcomed but some thought we didn't get involved soon enough, which pissed Muslims in other countries off. Then, they got pissed because we left. But it is also my understanding that Bin Laden was pissed because we stayed in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. So first, they want us there, then they don't, then they do, then when we leave, they don't like that either. As far as not trusting liberals in the armed forces. Umm, the military is just as divided politically as the rest of the country. It would be a pretty sad day, if my brother woke up one morning to find that half his unit was untrusting of the other half. He's in the Army and again from what I understand, these guys look at there service like a job. They do what their paid to do and they depend on their fellow soldiers to always have their back. Brothers in Arms and all that. Politics.... I'm a liberal, my parents were liberals for the most part though my Dad was pretty old school so he leaned toward conservative concerning some issues. I guess I grew up seeing it from both sides because my Mom was a lesbian (past tense because she's dead not because she was "cured" or any of that nonsense). So on some issues I'm conservative and others I'm liberal. Religion... Yeah, I'm a Christian, but some here already knew that but I dislike that I was attacked for stating that even though I gave personal reasons for my belief in God (but that was all a long time ago). I do however believe that my God doesn't send people to hell because of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the thing most people who dislike religion like to bring up about religious people. ie Belief in God automatically makes you a homophobic, islamophobic idiot.) That's all I wanted to say. Thank you and good night.
#2 zombie_babies Nov 05, 2010 9:46:00	Now is the hate directed toward Americans because they have troops in the country that host Meca over reacting? Yes. But I will respectfully compare this reaction to some Americans over reacting when it was announced that a Mosque was going to be built near Ground Zero. That's a bit of a stretch, you see.  The response to the irritation caused by America's presence in SA has been violence - suicide bombings and the like - in countries outside of SA.  Violence in Yemen, the US, etc.  Until Americans 'overreact' to the proposed Mosque to that degree, I'm afraid I believe your comparison is way off base.  Both are overreactions, yes.  However, one overreaction has killed thousands and another has killed none.  Until a group of Americans suicide bomb something in an Islamic country in direct response to the Mosque, it's just not on the same level.  Not that either are right, of course. As far as your comments on religion go, well, I'm 100% on board, actually.  Nicely said.
#3 scypio Nov 05, 2010 10:16:26	I think there's a problem with your assessment of religious leaders. You say its unfair because they are unelected but dictate right and wrong. But those leaders dictate right and wrong on a voluntary basis. If a cleric says its wrong to do x and right to do y, people have a choice in determining if its right or wrong for them. If a politician says its right to do x and wrong to do y, they can make a law. So while religious leaders have lots of sway, it still falls on the politicians who actually make and implement the laws. Following a bad religious leader is the same as following a bad advisor. The fault still falls on the person ultimately making the decisions. (This is obviously refering to current politics and not that of old school Europe.)
#4 pluisjen Nov 05, 2010 10:24:43	Religious leaders can also make laws. Breaking theirs might actually be worse then those made by politicians. If you break a politician's law, at least your friends and family will come visit you in jail. If you break your religious leader's law, you might not be between 4 walls, but your friends and family may very well never talk to you again. Which of those is worse depends on the person, but don't underestimate the kind of power those leaders wield. It's not just advice for many people.
#5 scypio Nov 05, 2010 10:34:28	But I'd say that's primarily a product of them being a community leader. Their laws typically have to be popular or accepted by the community. So the religious leader often times has to "check" with the community. And the community has "softer" power or at least softer legitimate power. But a politician can make an unpopular law and still throw you in jail (or worse). So they are not as immediately accountable and have harder power.
#6 pluisjen Nov 05, 2010 10:47:44	I think the level of community acceptance is about the same. If over 80% of people strongly disagree with a law a politician is making, it's going to be in use for a pretty short time, most likely. Political leaders (barring dictators) are also community leaders that have power because they are given it. And "acceptance" does not require a law being any good, just that nobody dares go against it. Even if they don't really agree with it, it's often as dangerous to find out if anybody agrees with you as it is to openly disagree with that law. They might not be on equal levels on power, but I do agree that they've got way too much power right now. And hardness of power is pretty relative. If a community leader can make other people shun, despise and/or harass you to the point where you are forced to go live in another city, I think they have pretty hard power as well. The main reason they don't may very well be because they are accountable by law as well as can be boxed up, but it certainly happens.
#7 erato Nov 05, 2010 11:23:08	@page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> But I'd say that's primarily a product of them being a community leader. Their laws typically have to be popular or accepted by the community. So the religious leader often times has to "check" with the community. And the community has "softer" power or at least softer legitimate power. But a politician can make an unpopular law and still throw you in jail (or worse). So they are not as immediately accountable and have harder power. Not always. People might very well be against a law, but believe god will punish them if they don't comply. Politics is about convincing the people your laws will give them what they wish for, religious power is about convincing people you're speaking for a being that means the world to them, and who they're prepared to follow even against their own wishes.
#8 scypio Nov 05, 2010 12:11:48	Pluisjen: Politicians can enact laws and punish people via those laws without public support. Religious leaders require public support since the public is performing the action. Look at it another way. Let's say all Christians are allowed to elect their leaders. But now, all Christians have no choice about compliance (the church choses what rules to enforce). So every Christian is legally compelled to follow the rules of the church with punishments ranging from fines to imprisonment to death. I think it'd be clear that the church would have gained much more power over their advisor role. As they are now, all their power comes from people complying to their advice. Yes, politicians often times take advice from religious leaders, but again, that is willing support. But politicians can force compliance without willing support. Religious leaders are given power from their supporters while politicians are given power by our system (and eventually their supporters). Erato: That is a good point. But I imagine if someone heavily disagrees with a specific aspect of a religion, they can just chose a sect that suits them. But in more controlled societies that may not be an option, so that'll have to be a caveat.
#9 pluisjen Nov 05, 2010 12:26:50	Politicians require that very same support. If they wouldn't have it, you'd have revolutions, anarchy, coupes, and various other forms of very unpleasant business that would end with either a dictatorship (dictators only need support from the men with large amounts of guns) or a new politician that does have that support.
#10 scypio Nov 05, 2010 13:52:57	If you chose to stop following a religious leader/institution, you can do so with less effort (ie chose). If I (and 1000 other people) chose to not pay our taxes and disobey several laws, we'd be put in jail, killed, or have some sort of revolution. If I (and 1000 other people) chose to not donate to a church and disobey several rules, there wouldn't be nearly as much fuss. There are probably groups that actively proclaim that they break major rules of certain churchs and do fine. If there were groups which actively proclaim that they break major laws, they'd be thrown in jail. But all in all, I understand that religious institutions can have huge influences on a society. I just think it is not entirely fair to call them "unelected officials [who] are above criticism or analysis..." in a comparision between them and politicians.
#11 scypio Nov 05, 2010 14:57:32	I know I'd much rather have a church say something (like abortion or stem cell research) is wrong and banned than my state government. And its the soft power of people making other people feel uncomfortable v the hard power of imprisonment or worse. Again, if politicians are listening to religious leaders, that's on the politician. Also, Iraqies were not killed in direct response to the Ground Zero mosque.
#12 Idolis Nov 05, 2010 15:15:29	Maybe its a difference, then again it might be the same, but if you disagree with a religious leader you can simply find a different church. Like my mother, as I stated she was a lesbian but she wanted my brother and I to at least experience the good things of religion ie congregation with like minded people who believe in God, and so she took us to a multi-denominational church that was comprised entirely of homosexuals. The Church was MCC (Metropolitan Community Church) in downtown St. Louis, MO (the heart of the Bible Belt) and I have to say it was one of the best experiences in my life. It was pretty cool to be around other children of homosexuals and to know that the stigma I felt back in the late 80's and early 90's was not unique. That's the beauty of America, if a church or minister doesn't suit your taste, you can find one that does. However, if a law is passed that says that homosexuals cannot congregate then we would have been left out in the cold, so yeah, its a difference.
#13 zombie_babies Nov 05, 2010 15:17:50	For the first 10 years (1991-2001) the response was protest to the American presence, like the GZ-Mosque thing. And protest their still is. This is what I wanted to compare. It is not the same thing then instrumentalizing the American presence, among other things, to justify suicide bombings. But at some point it was instrumentalized by Ben Ladin to justify an attack on the US. This is like instrumentalizing the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. Americans do not need to blow themselves up to make attacks, they have a much more puissant weaponry at their disposal. The wiki leaks numbers suggest 100,000 Iraqies died because of it (most civilians). Protest is one thing - and something that can be compared.  The situations as a whole, however, are far too different.  It's beyond protest in the case of SA and forgetting that for the sake of making a comparison is leaving out something I feel is too important to toss aside.  The attack on Iraq was not instigated by protesting Americans.  It was instigated by the gov't and some ... creative explanations of the situation over there given to the people.  Again, a wholly different scenario.  Since this isn't really what you were getting at but somethin I wanted to clarify anyway, I'll give it it's own li'l 'graph.  The Iraqi deaths are also not solely the responsibility of the soldiers fighting there - and certainly not all on America's hands as America isn't there alone.  Many died as a result of the 'human shield' strategy used by the insurgents, to insurgent bombs, directly by insurgent hands for various reasons and on and on.  The number may be accurate but a look behind it is also in order.  But, like I said, this is speaking to something you weren't actually getting at so feel free to ignore it.
#14 scypio Nov 05, 2010 15:19:02	Really? I find it easier to change in a democraty. Look at the stem cell research. It was banned and now it isn't. How long did it take women to free themselves from the Church's control of their bodies? If I (my wife) were going to get an abortion, I would definately prefer if the abortion was allowed by the government and banned by a religion. I could still get my abortion. If the abortion was banned by the goverment but allowed by a religion, it'd be much more difficult since I'd have to find shady underground, potentially unsafe places to get it. So yeah, I'd take the government saying "okay" over a church saying "okay". Look at all the things a church says is not okay that we do all the time. Abortion are not okay, but people have them. Divorce is not okay, but people have them. Adultery fits too. Also consider religions who believe you cannot eat meat, but that's not an issue. Now, look at things that religions like but the government does not. Polygamy is banned. So if I were a polygamist, I'm probably not happy even though religious leaders say its fine. I read an article about how a mother/father were put in jail because they didn't bring their child to a doctor because of their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs can have sway, but they typically are trumped by the actual laws of the land. Of course not. I was again comparing. How things can be used to justify violence, but it is not the same thing as protesting against something. If a guy used the American presence on SA to crash planes into buildings it shouldn't be amalgamed with everyone who protest the American presence. I do find it comparable with using 9/11 to invade Iraq. The distinction is targetting (civilian v military) and declaration of war. But I agree conceptually that they have similarities.
#15 pluisjen Nov 05, 2010 18:06:42	The main reason it's easier to say no to the priest then to the officer is because you're not a serious part of the church. If saying no to your priest meant none of your friends or family ever talking to you again, you'd be very hard pressed to say anything that goes against either your priest or the laws of the country. And believe me, that's the kind of pressure many religious officials can place upon their followers. I had a colleague who is an atheïst, except when his parents are around, because he's afraid that if he tells them he doesn't care for his faith, they'd never want to see him again. Fortunately he doesn't live near his parents so they don't actually know he doesn't go to church... but if he lived in the same town you can be damn sure the priest would have more then enough power to force him to come down there every sunday. The power might be a little more subtle, but it's still power.
#16 Idolis Nov 05, 2010 18:51:27	The main reason it's easier to say no to the priest then to the officer is because you're not a serious part of the church. If saying no to your priest meant none of your friends or family ever talking to you again, you'd be very hard pressed to say anything that goes against either your priest or the laws of the country. And believe me, that's the kind of pressure many religious officials can place upon their followers. I had a colleague who is an atheïst, except when his parents are around, because he's afraid that if he tells them he doesn't care for his faith, they'd never want to see him again. Fortunately he doesn't live near his parents so they don't actually know he doesn't go to church... but if he lived in the same town you can be damn sure the priest would have more then enough power to force him to come down there every sunday. The power might be a little more subtle, but it's still power.  That's sounds more like the fault of the individual and not the fault of the religion. I need clarification though, are you saying that my parents and I were not serious members of the church because it was a homosexual church? If you are, I'd like to note that it was my mother and I who cleaned the church all week long, polishing pews and hard wood floors, mowing the grass and pulling weeds out of the brick sidewalk. We also held Thanksgiving dinners for the underpriveleged families that lived in the area, handed out Christmas baskets to those same families every Christmas. The church was a big part of the community where it was placed and I'd say it was taken very seriously by those who attended and the people that lived nearby. @Goldo, I'd have to agree with you on the the fact that rural is different than city but St. Louis the city is pretty small. The county spreads out all over the place. Maybe, Missouri isn't the best example but it is proof that even small communities are changing, even some in the middle of nowhere. I'm betting that Missouri has one of the lowest crime rates when it comes to homosexuals as in assaults or murders on homosexuals. It's not Texas but Missouri was pretty backwoods not too long ago.
#17 Idolis Nov 05, 2010 19:33:23	It wouldn't be my place to say if it's special or not but if news reports are to believed there are some pretty "special" people that live there.
#18 pluisjen Nov 06, 2010 4:17:06	This, exactly. Perhaps your community was "serious" but that makes the community he came from "triple serious" because if he had mentioned to the community that "being gay is ok" he would instantly be without friends or family. I don't see how that can be a fault of the individual, that the only way he can possibly have someone feeding him and people talking to him is by being forced to listen to a priest he doesn't believe in.
#19 Idolis Nov 06, 2010 13:27:02	This, exactly. Perhaps your community was "serious" but that makes the community he came from "triple serious" because if he had mentioned to the community that "being gay is ok" he would instantly be without friends or family. I don't see how that can be a fault of the individual, that the only way he can possibly have someone feeding him and people talking to him is by being forced to listen to a priest he doesn't believe in.  Okay, I see what you're saying. But, that seems a little cowardly on his part to me. I'm not saying its his fault though. I guess my view is tainted by the fact that I don't have experience with people hiding themselves. I mean, I know people who are closeted but most of my experience is with people who aren't. They chose to out themselves instead of hiding and blaming it on their family's or church's inability to cope with it. However, I do understand that some people just don't have a choice. When the choice is between living an open life and dieing because someone else doesn't like it and hiding themselves and living, then the choice is pretty clear. However, my Mom came out of closet and faced that same result that you are speaking to. I guess its because of her that I feel the way I do. Being an American has a way of changing a persons perception of the world and I just can't fathom that a family would be so religious that they would never come to accept someone that they gave birth to, fathered, or was raised with. In time, my mom's family came to accept it but I have to admit it took many many years. In the meantime, she dealt with it by becoming a part of a community that did accept it. By community, I mean friends and acquaintances in the same circumstances. I really hope that that didn't come out as really harsh on your friend because I really don't want to come off as judgemental and only meant to say that I have little experience with people who choose to live as he does.
#20 EscherEnigma Nov 06, 2010 13:43:25	Family of choice v. family of birth. Nuff said. Oh, and yeah, some communities in America are that bad.  Hell, being gay in a Mormon family is pretty much a choice of never talk to your family or your church again or be miserable and closeted all your life.
#21 fsjal Nov 06, 2010 22:07:33	Idolis, what christian denomination are you?  The thing about criticizing any religion is you overgeneralize. People call Christians gay-haters, but in LA, where I live, The episcopal church, my church, made a lesbian a bishop (i've met her, she's a very cool person). Food for thought.
#22 Idolis Nov 07, 2010 1:37:30	I'm not of any denomination. I'm not big on organized religion the main reason is stuff like churches making lesbians bishops didn't happen when I was growing up. I'd hate to say it but AIDS had a great effect outside of the deaths it caused. While preachers in certain churches were calling it the Gay Plague, groups of homosexuals became more vocal. It started in the 80's and when I was young the Gay Movement was still in it's infancy. It was unheard of even then, as far as Missouri goes, for homosexuals to live openly. I watched as the world was changing and watched also as Churches railed against it. However if I have to choose I would say Methodist because a friend took to one of their churches when I was in my twenties and the sermon that day was on tolerance and so I felt sort of okay there. Didn't go back but it was a relief to finally hear a minister, reverend, pastor or anything like that, who wasn't gay, say my Mom wasn't going to hell even though I always knew that to be the case. Edit: Prior to that my experience with Churches were Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, both sets of grandparents churches, both known for their intolerance and fire and brimstone sermons. So I thought all churches were like that. Still, I prefer to interpret the bible myself and not rely on someone else to interpret it to me.
#23 pluisjen Nov 07, 2010 2:46:08	Still, I prefer to interpret the bible myself and not rely on someone else to interpret it to me. That's definately the best way to go about it, IMHO.
#24 fsjal Nov 08, 2010 17:51:16	Still, I prefer to interpret the bible myself and not rely on someone else to interpret it to me. That's definately the best way to go about it, IMHO.  Agreed. The thing I like about the Episcopal Church is that no one is strict about interpreting the bible. As opposed to Mississouri Synod Lutherans.
#25 boraxe Nov 09, 2010 15:45:22	Religious beliefs can have sway, but they typically are trumped by the actual laws of the land. Ideally yes, which is why those who use their political power to entrench their religious belifes as the laws of the land are so frightening to the rest of us.