Killing Civilians Is the Army's Job?

I am against war. I have made this clear before. Others may see glory and honor, I see only broken, bloodied bodies and the pain and grief of the survivors. Perhaps war is inevitable, but I think people in power have more to gain from guns and bombs than words and more words. I understand that it is unavoidable, sometimes, that civilians will die during a war. I assumed that most people would want to avoid the deaths of noncombatants, of old men and pregnant women and children. Well, you know what they say about assuming . . .

According to Barabara, the US military is contemplating a medal for "courageous restraint", i.e., holding fire to save civilian lives. This isn't precisely true. (Nothing Barabara writes is precisely true.) Certain NATO commanders have suggested that we need to do something to cut down on civilian casualties in Afghanistan, while at the same time clearly stating that they don't want NATO or US troops to risk their lives, either.

Well, how dare they!

Are we becoming the stupidest country in the world? What can terrorists be thinking when they read this nonsense?

The emasculation/feminizing of our culture continues apace. What next: Little League trophies for purposely taking a walk to first base?

I imagine the terrorists are thinking that's it's going to be a little harder to recruit if we become the good guys. Just a thought. Beyond that, if we make policy based on what terrorists will think, they really have won. Seriously, we should emulate al Queda's tactics and make the world unsafe for everyone? Maybe the writer hasn't noticed, but what we call a war zone is what the Afghanis call home.

She ends with this gem of a prayer:

Please dear Lord, can we vote these wusses out of power so we can let the military do what they are supposed to do?

Killing civilians: what the military is supposed to be doing. Nice.

Bigger Bullets, Maybe

war, christmas, christian, stupid,

The War on Christmas continues. Today's exchange involves the Gap and "thousands of consumers".

The American Family Association said that despite “tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas” and requests by the organization, San Francisco-based Gap Inc. has refused to use the word.

“Christmas is special because of Jesus,” maintains AFA in its e-mail newsletter. “It’s not just a ‘winter holiday.’ For millions of Americans the giving and receiving of gifts is in honor of the One who gave Himself.

You're buying tshirts at the Gap to honor Jesus? Really? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, noez, I used the maniacal laughter too soon!

"This year millions of Americans will join us to help save Christmas," he said. "If a government entity censors Christmas in violation of the Constitution, then we will first seek to educate but, if necessary, we will litigate. If retailers choose to profit from Christmas while pretending it does not exist, then we will patronize their competitors."

I was unaware the Constitution demanded that the government wish us all Merry Christmas. The little-known Grinch Amendment, apparently. The litigation threat really makes this piece complete, though. They could be using their money to feed the homeless or give poor children a present and a Christmas dinner, but no, they'll be suing the government for not sending out religious-themed Christmas cards. Classic.

Yee-hah! The War On Christmas Is On!

war, christmas, christian, stupid,

Yes! It has finally arrived, that magical time of year when atheists arise from their subterranean lairs to take on the mantle of Saint Dawkins, pick up the fabled Sword of Myers and begin again the dread War on Christmas. Let the children weep as we slay Lil' Baby Jesus in his manger at the Courthouse, silence carollers in our public schools and force the shopkeepers to acknowledge both the Christian and the not in their cheery greetings!

We shall remove every manger scene from every home, stop private institutions from singing religious songs and presenting religious plays, and verily this year you would not be allowed to attend a worship service on Christmas morn . . .

Wait, what?

You can totally do all that stuff in the second paragraph? What's the Sword of Myers for then, anyway? The Constitution takes care of most of that stuff in the first paragraph. I gotta say, Atheist Takeovers are never close to as much fun as Saint Dawkins makes them sound in the newsletter.

'Twas The Month Before Christmas (not the 'holidays')

"MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Twas the month before Christmas*

I have no idea why every line is followed by an asterisk. Also, the original is a delightful candy-apple red font against a burgundy background. And this blog has background music! Classy.

When all through our land,*
Not a Christian was praying*
Nor taking a stand.*

Oh, yes, all those special "month before Christmas" prayers that used to be prayed. or something.

See the PC Police had taken away,*
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.*

The PC Police? Really? When was the last time anyone was arrested for being a douchebag misogynist, homophobic, racist, ablist asshole? Oh, right, never.

The children were told by their schools not to sing,*

You mean like every other day of the week, when they're not singing about their milkshake and the yard?

About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.*

"and things"? I'm fairly certain angels have wings, which would have rhymed with . . . oh, fuck it.

It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say*
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.*
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit*
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!*

to get the shoppers, the cash/checks/credit or the floor? really unclear use of a pronoun.

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod*
Something was changing, something quite odd! *
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa*
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.*

1995 called- it wants its pop star back. and which retailer is promoting Ramadan? Which ended in October, btw. And promoting Kwanzaa? You mean by selling Kwanzaa merchandise? Like they do with what other holiday?

As Targets were hanging their trees upside down*
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.*
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears*
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.*

Staples? The office supply store? and upside down trees? what. the. fuck.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty*
Are words that were used to intimidate me.*

Di-ver-si-ty intimidates me, too. It has all those scary dashes.

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen*
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !*

Who's Darden? And where's the Antichrist Obama?

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter*

To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter*

Separation of Church and State. bichez.

And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith*

if the cashier at Target doesn't say "Merry Christmas" to you, you aren't Christian anymore? I see the answer to all my problems here!

Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*

Doing it right now, I think.

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded*

The reason for the season, stopped before it started.*

2,000 years ago? Mary had an abortion? That must be some translation of the bible I missed.

So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'*

Dream Tree?

Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.*

Starbucks=evil? What do have against sugary coffee-based beverages?

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say*

Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS ,not Happy Holiday !*

I thought Dan Rather prevented you from doing that.

I do so enjoy the War on Christmas. I'm glad it started it early this year.

Could You Repeat That, Please?

christianity, christian, evangelical, marxism, socialism, war, homosexual, homophobia, bible, jesus,

Jan Markell, at Olive Tree Views, points out everything that is wrong with evangelical Christianity today, with no apparent awareness that she did so.

In many Bibles, all the words of Jesus are in red. There is nothing wrong with that. But something is wrong when Leftist Christians or so-called Christians want to mute the words of Paul and other writers and only follow Jesus' words. They call themselves "red-letter Christians."

They feel it is convenient to blot out the words of Paul on homosexuality and focus in on the good deeds Jesus talks about. Most are pacifists who reject an "eye for an eye" (Leviticus 24:19-20). They focus on Jesus' words about helping the poor, ministering to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40), loving our enemies, etc. That justifies abandoning hundreds, even thousands of condemning verses in the Bible they choose to wish away. That makes homosexuality OK and war wrong! And remember, Paul and the others in the Bible represent Jesus' words. They were His spokesmen.

Srsly? Let's review, shall we? War: soldiers and innocents die, often horribly, and many are left injured and maimed. Children are permanently traumatized, left orphaned, do without food, medicine and education. Chaos reigns, leading to rape and other forms of violence. Fear abounds.

Homosexuality:

I suggest we send Ms. Markell to live with a gay couple for a week, then drop her off in a war zone. Maybe then she could see the difference. Unbelievable.

Wallis continues, "Jesus calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, He probably means we shouldn't kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers. Ghandi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus was teaching in those verses except Christians." To your average evangelical, the words of Ghandi are meaningless.

Yeah, fuck Ghandi! What did he know? All his non violence- he could have been waging war!

As Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy writes, "These people only criticize the U.S. and Israel in its human rights critiques, while remaining largely silent about monstrous regimes. They focus on America's supposed mistreatment of Indians, about slavery, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But they will never talk about the Holocaust." You will also note they don't talk about the butchery of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong IL.

The "supposed" mistreatment of Indians? Does she perhaps mean the genocide committed against the native peoples of America? What is wrong with these people?

I'm starting to understand why people like Limbaugh and Beck are so attractive to these people, and it really scares me.

The Taliban in Their Own Words

afghanistan, taliban, war,
Newsweek's oral history of the Taliban is a fascinating read, interweaving short stories from several Afghanis discussing how they ended up joining the Taliban and fighting us. They were not the stories I expected them to be. Were the circumstances reversed, I wonder how many of us would be mujahadeen.

Two days before the September 11 attacks on America, we were all celebrating the death of [Northern Alliance commanderAhmed Shah] Masood, [who was assassinated by Qaeda agents posing as television reporters]. His forces were already on the verge of defeat, so his death all but assured us of total victory in Afghanistan. But the September 11 attacks turned our cheer into deep concern. We gave those camels [a derogatory Afghan term for Arabs] free run of our country, and they brought us face to face with disaster. We knew the Americans would attack us in revenge.

Realizing the danger, I immediately sent my wife and children to Pakistan. The entire government started to fall apart. I never thought the Taliban would collapse so quickly and cruelly under U.S. bombs. Everyone began trying to save themselves and their families. When the bombing began, I changed out of my usual white mullah's garb, put on an old brown shalwar kameez, and headed for Pakistan. I crossed the mountains on foot, and at the top I turned around and said: "God bless you, Afghanistan. I'll never come back to you under our Islamic regime."

Just a note: we might consider everyone from a vast area in Eurasia to be Arab, but Afghanis do not consider themselves to be Arabs, and neither do Iranians, for that matter.

Why Atheists Care

blackwater, bush, war, iraq, religion, gog, magog, hussein, eric prince, Jaques Chirac, christianity, evangelical
4,000 US soldiers have died thus far in Iraq. Around 100,000 Iraqis have died. Over $600,000,000,000 has been spent on the war in Iraq. Thus far, no one's come up with a particularly good reason why.

There were no WMDs in Iraq, and evidence has shown that nobody ever really believed there were. Al Queda wasn't operating in Iraq until after we invaded. In fact, Saddam Hussein was a fairly secular Middle Eastern leader.

Now it seems we may know the answer, and it demonstrates, with horrifying clarity, why atheists care so very much about the merging of religion and politics.

According to former French President Jaques Chirac, Bush cited religious reasons for invading Iraq. Apparently, Bush was attempting to prevent the famed Gog-Magog War some evangelicals believe is prophesied in the book of Ezekiel. Really.

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

. . .

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

. . .

The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”

Absurd, yes. Untrue? I fear not. We may very well be involved in a modern day Crusade, especially given the latest revelations concerning Eric Prince and Blackwater. According to one of two anonymous affidavits filed in the last few days:

John Doe 2 alleges that Mr Prince operated a web of companies to “obscure wrongdoing, fraud and other crimes . . . to avoid detection of his money laundering and tax evasion schemes.” He adds that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe [and] intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder ­Iraqis.”

In a bizarre addition, John Doe 2’s affidavit says: “Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades” and refers to a “wife swapping and sex ring” run by “Mr Prince’s North Carolina operations”.

We need to fight against the conflation of religion and politics, religion and policy, religion and war. You and I (for my US readers) may well be the owners of a Crusade, and I don't really think "Oh, my bad" is going to cover this one.

Does It Really Represent Them?

aclu, war, memorial, vietnam, christian, atheism, atheist, jesus, cross, soldiers, honor, memorial

The ACLU is the ultimate boogeyman for conservatives of all stripes, but no one hates the ACLU more than fundys. The ACLU is, to them, the army of darkness attempting to stamp Christianity out entirely, through the clever removal of religious displays on public property. (You just can't believe unless everyone else does, too, apparently.)

Normally I ignore this whingeing from the fundys, because it's asinine, but this case pissed me off.

You see, there is a large war memorial out in the Mojave Desert. I have no problem with war memorials or honoring the sacrifices of soldiers, but that's not what this is about. The war memorial is a giant cross. That's it. A really big, white cross on a hill.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for TMLC, said, “Through our brief and the compelling stories of the war heroes we represent, we want the court to feel the devastating impact removing crosses will have on those who have sacrificed so much for this country.”
“Since the beginning of America,” Mr. Thompson continued, “crosses have been used to memorialize our fallen war veterans and to give solace to their families and comrades.

Ironically, the Ninth Circuit used the very constitution these veterans defended with their lives to order the destruction of the memory of their heroic sacrifices. Sadly, the cross in the Mojave Desert is currently covered from view until the appeal is resolved.”

Who does a cross honor? It's not soldiers. A cross honors Jesus. One might make the argument that a cross honors Christian soldiers, but I'm not sure I accept that. Even assuming a giant cross honors Christian soldiers, are all US soldiers- and surely you agree that all US soldiers deserve honoring- Christian? No. So, what about those other soldiers? Why should we exclude them from war memorials? Why shouldn't they be honored?

The reason this pisses me off is the picture above. That woman is hugging the grave of her son, a US soldier who died in combat. He was a US soldier, and a Muslim. She's hugging the grave because that's all she has left of her son. Is her son's sacrifice less because he wasn't Christian? Is her suffering less because her dead son wasn't Christian? Should we honor her dead son's- and all the other nonchristians- sacrifice less because he wasn't Christian?

No. We should honor all the soldiers, and all their families. We should not exclude the atheists and the Mulisms and the Jews and all the rest. Their sacrifice means as much as anyone else's. We don't need to praise Jesus to remember our falllen soldiers. The Vietnam War Memorial is a beautiful, secular tribute to those who died in the Vietnam War. It acknowledges everyone equally, and excludes no one. That's what we should be supporting for our fallen soldiers. Jesus has plenty of tributes already, he doesn't need another at the expense of soldiers who sacrificed their lives for us.

Portugal: A Case Study in Drug Decriminalization

drug, war, treatment, addiction, portugal, US, america,
Oddly, the Netherlands is not the European country with the most liberal drug laws: Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, is.

How has that worked out for Portugal? (Keep in mind, about 1 out of 4 people in jail right now in the US are imprisoned for nonviolent drug charges. The US has 5% of the world's drug users, but 25% of the world's drug related prisoners.)

Really well. (from Time.com)

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Amazing, when you stop criminalizing drug addiction, people actually get treated for it. Who could possibly have imagined that?

Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Week

beetlebabee, analogy, gay, marriage, prop 8, same sex, tradition, war,
I'll probably regret giving this out so soon, but I have to award the Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Week to Beetlebabee for this:

[The fight against same sex marriage is] like washing the dishes or making the dinner. Put on the helmet, tighten your belt, change your expectations and incorporate this war into your lifestyle. It’s not going away anytime soon.

Does anyone here put on a helmet and tighten their belt before washing dishes or making dinner? Why would I need a helmet or a tighter belt? What on earth is going on in Beetle's kitchen that she needs a helmet to make dinner or wash dishes?

Oh, and I like the idea of "incorporating" war into one's lifestyle. Here's the thing: if you actually are involved in a war, you know, like our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, war is your lifestyle. There's no "incorporating" to be done, war is all you're doing.

Yeesh. Comparisons that make no sense and inappropriate war references.

Random Notes

war, iraq, afghanistan, soldiers, ptsd, brain, injuries, torquemada, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, homosexual, homophobia, dalai lama
When I was very little, and my older sister was ignoring me (which she frequently was), I would play this game where I would poke her, gently, until she exploded. (You know how kids are.)

I mention this because if you do anything to someone often enough, poke them, call them names, lie about them, push to legislate them into permanent second class citizens, they will eventually explode. Everyone on earth will explode in this situation, no matter how calm and good natured they are. I imagine, if you did it long enough, you could poke the Dalai Lama* into exploding. (At least a month of poking 24 hours a day. That man is calm. And happy. I like the Dalai Lama.)

Angie seems not to have figured this out yet. Perhaps she is calmer than the Dalai Lama, which I doubt, or perhaps she judges the gay community just a touch more harshly than herself. You decide.

It can be daunting and intimidating to face such a virulent, violent rage that is at the core of the homosexual movement.

You know what, Angie? I'll be happy to explain this to you. Come over here where I can poke you.

--------------------

I truly hate the use of violent words and metaphors to describe what are, or should be, nonviolent events.

Volly brought up an excellent example of this in a comment:

Back in my Christian days, I took a course at church called "Becoming a Contagious Christian." The companion book had the same title. At least twice in the book and during the lectures, the author and the class leader used the expression "Hold their feet to the fire." I didn't finish the course because of that. All I could think of was Torquemada. He was pretty "contagious" too, from what I've heard.

How couldn't you think of Torquemada when hearing that? I also hate references to "war", "battle" and "revolution" that have been flying about the interwebz lately. The US is currently involved in two real life wars (or conflicts, or whatever we're calling them these days): Afghanistan and Iraq. Real life soldiers, brave men and women all, are dying. Real people are coming home without arms or legs, coming home with brain injuries and PTSD. Real people are suffering horribly, and that's not to mention the Afghanis and Iraqis that are suffering horribly.

To compare your attempts to deny same sex marriage, or your unhappiness that the GOP is no longer in charge, with what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq right now is comtemptable. You're not in a war. You're at no risk of dying or losing a leg or not being able to write your name. Give it up.

*The Dalai Lama has his own website! Squeeee!!