What the Captured Documents Show

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Capt. Carrera
And Pat should know spin.

I don't play the guitar, but I know bad guitar playing when I hear it.

[Tobra]

I am struck by how grateful I am that none of you Left Field folks will never be in a position of authority. I personally try to keep an open mind about everything. Y'all are confronted by the possibility you are wrong, and you attack the messenger, without bothering to consider the message. Funny in a sad sort of way

[RoninLB]

The US is a battlefield. The military knows how to conduct war.

Controlling the politics of gov't and population is a delicate task. Defeat has never been an option since that policy was embedded in the war of 1812. Even Reagan knew that. When bs politics affected warfare he installed Bill Casey in charge of the CIA for a specific task discussed only among "gentlemen".

The current problem is that the military was never designed as nation builders and a common NATO structured force for the task has never been built.


Bush hating advocates need something to believe in. That's good to a certain extent. [Politics is a waste of time to have any sort of beliefs in imo.] Whatever floats your boat but they'll never land any fish. Politics to them is one big self circle jerk with a big imagination. Real orgies have more action imo.

What I worry about is that they could screw up international trade. That's the silent long term monster in waiting imo.

[72doug2,2S]

Whatever happened to liberal intellectuals? Was it all just a myth? All we get knee jerk emotionalism, partisan gainsaying, or bandwagon media propagandists.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Whatever happened to liberal intellectuals? Was it all just a myth? All we get knee jerk emotionalism, partisan gainsaying, or bandwagon media propagandists.

Mostly myth. Liberal intellectual is like saying Bush conservatives; neither exists.

[72doug2,2S]

9-11-01 made strange bedfellows Bush, conservatives, and some minority called neo-conservatives. What was the alternative?
For the majority of America there wasn't one.

[Jim Richards]

B2 and his cadre are neo-cons, not their bedfellows. Their strange bedfellows are the religious interests. Pre-emptive wars are not what I would call a pro-religious platform.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
B2 and his cadre are neo-cons, not their bedfellows. Their strange bedfellows are the religious interests. Pre-emptive wars are not what I would call a pro-religious platform.

Well, actually, bringing war to the Middle East is seen by some to be fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. That's something Bush2 used to allude to a lot.

[72doug2,2S]

True, the religious platform isn't Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. That platform is morality, as defined biblically, or by the Church.

Like, The right to Life (anti-abortion, ebryonic protection), protection of religious institutions (marriage man & wife), Freedom of religious expression, and repression of normalizing immoral behavior (as defined by above). BTW, it is not Nation Building or endorsement of one type of Governement over another.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by techweenie
Well, actually, bringing war to the Middle East is seen as some to be fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. That's something Bush2 used to allude to a lot.

This, if true, scares the bezesus outta me!

[72doug2,2S]

Now you're talking about fringe groups and occults, like seventh day adventists. That's not the religious platform.

[Moneyguy1]

The definition of morality varies from group to group. As near as I can figure out, all moral codes are based upon the opinions and assumptions (not to mention interpretations) of those considered "leaders".

I have given up on the specifics of "morality". I follow the George Burns (O God) code: "Don't hurt each other".

AS for some of the "issues", isn't the final agreement between the individual and his or her Creator? Is it the duty of government to legislate morality? I mentioned this in another thread. The Republican party, for one, sent me by mistake (I am a registered Independent) a request for donations and a bunch of questions to be answered to help them devise a party platform. Just two of the questions read as follows:

"Should Congress pass the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment which would once and for all define marriage as being the sacred union between one man and one woman?"

"Do you believe in protecting the sanctity of life and maintaining the ban on partial birth abortion?"

Read carefully and tell me these are not designed to legislate moral behavior. Please tell me where I am wrong.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S

Whatever happened to liberal intellectuals? Was it all just a myth? All we get knee jerk emotionalism, partisan gainsaying, or bandwagon media propagandists.

The last of the great lib intellectuals died last year afaik.

His name was Richard Penn Kemble and was the thinker behind the Coalition for a Democratic Majority [CDM]. The new libs/post 'Nam protesters & Dems was his enemy and sued and trashed him repeatidly.

Kemble created and inspired many organizations. If you're not into the hate-Bush advocacy libs do a search on Kemble. He was the real deal.

[72doug2,2S]

This is a difficult question, morality and legislation. We take great care not promote one religion over another. While we strive to separate the Church and the State, you cannot deny the influence morality has and its existence at every level of the legislative process. Our legislators cannot leave morality at the door, just as they cannot remove their eyes and go sightseeing. Take out the first three commandments and you have the historical and very real building blocks of our Law, no question. The rest may be relative.

However, the religious platform does not deal in relativism it deals in absolutes. There is no relativism when it comes to mortal sin. The morality platform is not up for sale, or revisionist theory. See previous post. It is either defined Biblically or by the Church (If you are Catholic).

[Moneyguy1]

Some morality issues are universal; others are created by different religions. Stoning is still legal in some ME countries. It is a "mortal sin" for a Muslim to convert to a different religion and the punishment is death. I do not see how any religion deals in "absolutes", since mores change over time. No longer are people burnt at the stake; the Inquisition is gone. Many Catholics differ with the Church on some matters, yet consider themselves good people. So it was in the past. THe world is no longer flat and Galileo has been forgiven.

As for "mortal sin", look up the Church concept of the "Internal Forum".

http://astro.temple.edu/~arcc/marriage.htm

one paragraph of a reasonably long article:

"The Fathers of Vatican II described our Church as a pilgrim Church. BY that, they meant that we have all had to make our way through history, sometimes proudly, sometimes painfully, sometimes striding, sometimes limping, in a not always successful effort to follow the Gospel. THe war-making popes of the late medieval era and the early renaissance limped very badly indeed. Some led lives of luxury and licentiousness, building palaces for their mistresses and handling on the overflow from Crusade treasuries to their illegitimate sons and daughters. Let those of us who never limp cast the first stone."

The ultimate result comes between the individual and the Creator. That is the only thing in the end that counts.

[72doug2,2S]

I can't speak for the Catholics, but they say in matters of faith and doctrine they are infallible. Doesn't this sound like absolutes?

You are correct; the final exam is what counts.

What if the Creator gave us his law and said this is absolute. Do changing social mores change that? Does the pot turn around to the potter and question his being or the potter's relevance?

[RoninLB]

Screw organized religion. This country was built around a belief in a god. Thomas Paine was a preacher who did his best to preserve that thought. That our constitution does its best to separate organized religion from state is his result. If you examine the history of the 4 presidents carved in the stone monument you will find that they believed in a god but not any organized religion. Lincoln is most notable in that regard.

fwiw.. Rome's RC has survived and prospered because it was flexible enough to change with its believers. Ronald Reagan, CIA's Bill Casey, and Pope whatever was the power that freed Poland. Rome knows politics when it sees it. Care to guess what the most powerful religion is in Poland ?

Today's far right is low key and gaining strength. They employ Wall St marketing models for recruitment and money managing gaining big returns and growth on its bucks. Bush throws them a bone to keep them in line like Harriet Meyers. That she didn't make the Supremes is less important that that the far right was acknowledged.

If you were to take notice every president sooner or later throws a line around about god.

[Moneyguy1]

Absolutes:

Do not kill
Do not steal


Relative items

Meatless Fridays
Divorce/Annullment
Geocentric universe


Just a few. There are probably a few more but my mind is not responding well today. Mature religions recognize that there are few absolutes, most tenets are only individual's interpretations of what is perceived to be God's word. If this were not so, then many of the beliefs of the Old Testament would not be so difficult to understand today. Many were for health reasons like not eating pork. Whether or not the words in the "good book" are the actual words of God, they seem to be deliberately vague on a number of points.

Even the RC Church is very careful about their doctrine changes. Unless the item in question is "Ex Cathedra" (from the chair) it is not an absolute.

A long time ago, a very wise clerical friend of mine told me the following:

"God created faith. Man created religion".