Many fundagelicals like to blame most of the ills of the world on 'secular humanism'. Sometimes on the 'net, they will trot out this creaky, obscure thing called 'The Humanist Manifesto', as if all non-theists are in cahoots.
If there is 'secular humanism' , does that infer that there is such a thing as 'theistic humanism'? If so, is theistic humanism 'good' and secular humanism 'bad'? Or are they both 'bad'? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 05-08-05, 06:56 PM frankvan I love that word "fundagelicals". Is that your own invention? Mind if I use it now and then? As to that creaky secular humanist thing, I just received some literature in my snail mail. I make it a practice to never join anything but I did read it, and honestly, it seemed like something I already believe in, so I see nothing offensive about it. But I guess fundagelicals hate anything that encourages free thought, especially agnosticism. Wink
05-08-05, 07:21 PM GarColga Nope - I didn't coin the word. A poster named 'weeful' used to use it. I don't remember if weeful posted on this forum or another one.
05-08-05, 08:00 PM juanruiz I remeber weeful, and yes I believe he used to post here. Was it he who said atheists were incapable of being moral because they had no religious code? Don't remember.
Anyway, in regard to secular humanism, it simply is the continuation of a belief which dates back to Classical Antiquity, resurfaces in the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment, that man is of value. This in contrast to the medieval view, and Paul's (who began it all), that man is a worthless piece of crap sinner. Man, of all earth's creatures, has only been limited by the boundaries of his imagination, and feudal systems authorized by churches. Had there not been the latter, burning "heretics" for over a thousand years, who knows how much further along we'd be today? Religions despise individual freedom of thought, it takes away their power over us.
05-08-05, 08:28 PM juanruiz The great hypocrisy of Christian churches, from the time they inherited power under Constantine, to the present, is that they worship a person who was an absolute revolutionary, who excoriated the status quo. Who said that in the Kingdom of God, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. In other words, those in power will suck hind tit, while the meek shall inherit the earth. And, these same churches, have, in the main, supported the status quo, the divine right of kings, the feudal system, slavery, the oppression of women. And they have the unmitigated gall of citing Biblical verses in support of their stand. Jesus message has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity. That latter is being run by people with Rolex watches, the finest wine and food, and BMWs; in short, people who give a tinker's damn about spirituality or morality.
05-08-05, 10:17 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: I remeber weeful, and yes I believe he used to post here. Was it he who said atheists were incapable of being moral because they had no religious code? Don't remember.
I remember that thread! I'm sure I didn't take part because a discussion with weeful was headache-inspiring. He would constantly change the terms of his argument. LOL! Wish he was still around though.
05-09-05, 01:01 PM babthrower GarColga asks:
"If [there is such a thing], is theistic humanism 'good' and secular humanism 'bad'? Or are they both 'bad'?"
Well, humanism of course is the belief that things that seem 'good' to humans are worthy values. E.g. freedom from hunger, freedom from pain, equality before earthly justice systems, and the like.
It might be said that the United States of America was founded on theistic humanist values. The founders were Deists.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed..."
This might very easily be called a 'humanist manifesto'.
Mind you, I'm not at all sure that Geo. W. and friends think that this is a 'good thing'.
(Hello, Gar, good to hear from you again.) Big Grin
05-09-05, 01:29 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz:
Anyway, in regard to secular humanism, it simply is the continuation of a belief which dates back to Classical Antiquity, resurfaces in the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment, that man is of value. This in contrast to the medieval view, and Paul's (who began it all), that man is a worthless piece of crap sinner.
This view, this Christian misanthropy, seems to have persisted past the medieval era!
"We are all made of mud, and this mud is not just on the hem of our gown, or on the soles of our boots, or in our shoes. We are full of it, we are nothing but mud and filth both inside and outside". - John Calvin
"You are a little, wretched, despicable creature; a worm, a mere nothing, and less than nothing; a vile insect, that has risen up in contempt against the majesty of heaven and earth". - Jonathan Edwards
05-09-05, 01:34 PM juanruiz Gosh! Good thing they didn't say what they really thought.
05-09-05, 01:42 PM babthrower And then they have the gall to turn around and ask us for money!
(They must think we're stupid. And if we give it to them, they're right.)
05-11-05, 02:57 AM tsaeb I think that a secular humanist is one who would claim that a human can tune out God so that a human can function without influence and even existence of God necessarily hypothesized.
I think that a theistic humanist is one who would claim that God can manifest both in Himself and in a human so that a human can function as both a secular humanist and a theistic humanist, dependent on one's will determining where God is at any particular time relative to the theistic humanist, God's existence presupposed.
So the secular humanist would conclude that he/she is better off and possibly more honest and less deluded by trying to remain a secular humanist, while the theistic humanist would conclude that he/she is better off trying to function according to the will of God instead of flirting with what he/she would regard as the slippery slope into becoming a secular humanist out of God's will.
05-11-05, 08:05 AM babthrower Interesting take on the subject, Tsaeb.
P.S. to the Calvin and Edwards quotes: To utterly destroy the self-esteem of the person one wishes to manipulate or abuse is a well-know device used by sociopaths. It works when the victim surrenders his/her judgement and autonomy to the abuser. And each time the victim does the will of the abuser, repressing his/her own aversion to the actions, the stronger becomes the abuser's control: the more the victim surrenders all right to make value judgements independently.
In some cults we know that parents, for example, will accept that their own children are being sexually used by the cult leader. This may be directly, when the cult leader rapes the child, or indirectly, when the child is given to a favored member of the cult leader's inner circle, as a reward for faithful service. They also will accept, and even assist in, the murder of those who anger the leader. There is no limit to what they will do. Murder is no longer murder, but the cleansing of the group. Child rape is the will of god.
Most 'holy wars' of history are anything but holy, and represent the megalomania of a cult leader. Including the 'holy war' currently waiting in the wings.
05-11-05, 08:30 AM coldfuse Whoever coined the phrase "fundagelicals," my need for shorter words immediately reduces it to fungi.
"The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.
Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree."
Where did you get the idea that The Humanist Manifesto is obscure? It certainly is not creaky, there now being a Manifesto III which is significant in its differences with the origina
05-11-05, 08:49 AM VelvetVoice JR: Paul did not start the 'we are nothing but crap' movement. Recall Jeremiah's words 'all our righteousness is as filthy rags' and Solomon 'there is no one on earth who is righteous'. Jesus also said 'there is no one on earth worthy', to which the apostles asked 'then who can be saved?' and the answer is 'with God all things are possible'. 05-11-05, 08:50 AM juanruiz Those of the religious right who define secular humanism as a religion generally do so in order to maintain it is taught in the schools, and demand equal time for their beliefs in the classroom too.
05-11-05, 08:55 AM VelvetVoice Babs: I hadn't seen your posts in some time, I thought you left! Welcome back, if indeed you were missing.
The thing about self-esteem, I understand how people blow back and forth between belief and non-belief, or think that religion is to give over your mind. However, the important thing about knowing God is your relationship to him, and the enlightened Christian should know the difference between the voice of God and the voice of organized religion. I have been struggling with this very issue lately. It's extremely difficult to discern the direction of my life, and spiritual direction is the biggest mystery.
I am writing an article about pastors and what I think their job is. I am posting it on TSH as soon as I'm finished. Also want to talk more about personal missions and the role of the Christian on earth.
05-11-05, 08:57 AM juanruiz
quote: Paul did not start the 'we are nothing but crap' movement. Recall Jeremiah's words 'all our righteousness is as filthy rags' and Solomon 'there is no one on earth who is righteous'. Jesus also said 'there is no one on earth worthy', to which the apostles asked 'then who can be saved?' and the answer is 'with God all things are possible'.
As the first theologian of Christianty, Paul set the table for those following. Jews had no such view of themselves, nor do they now.
05-11-05, 08:59 AM VelvetVoice I take exception to the characterization of Calvin and Edwards. Especially Edwards. He indeed wrote 'Sinners In The Hands of An Angry God', but some of his other writings talk about the beauty of creation and the goodness of service to your fellow man. There is a sermon we talked about in our last year's ladies retreat full of wisdom and emptying of ourselves. Also, Charity and Its Fruits is also on my list, I got a copy at the last Family Bible Camp. Anyone interested in talking about them?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1933 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
JR: Reread the OT then, and you'll see it. The true Jew knows that he is not on equal footing with God. Hyam Maccoby is not the only Jew in the world. I want to know what other Jewish authors you have read, that tells you this is the case. The OT prophets called out for repentance all the time, and to give God His due. +++++++++++++++++++++ 05-11-05, 09:15 AM juanruiz In the OT you have God surveying his creations and calling them good. In the NT Paul labels one of them, Man, as inherently evil. This has nothing to do with Judaism, which sees Man has having both a good nature (yetzer-tov) and a bad nature (yetzer-ra). Paul's view makes possible his whole message: you need Jesus because you alone are a miserable sinner, and cannot achieve salvation on your own.
05-11-05, 09:33 AM VelvetVoice How do you explain Job then? Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon? I'm sure there are other prophets who said to turn away from their nature to be selfish and do evil, and to turn to God for repentance and renewal. The OT is rife with examples on how God said 'your sacrifices and prayers are like stench in My nostrils' and 'your hearts and minds are what I desire, not the blood of goats and bulls'. Jesus also said in the Sermon on the mount 'if you, being evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more so that your Father in Heaven knows, if you would only ask Him.'
The Jews had a shadow of salvation, by the sacrifice of goats and bulls, and we have the perfect once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. Neither party could achieve salvation on their own.
God does call His creation good, it is true, but He also laments them since they degenerated to doing evil things. Killing being the most obvious, also angels taking wives from humans is one I'm thinking of.
The free will thing from God, was that a mistake? If we didn't have free will or a mind of our own, would we know how to love? Would we even have known God, or known the sweet perfection of our fellow beings? If there is no bad, could we really know good? I only have the height of ecstacy when I know and feel the depths of despair. They may not be pleasant in their season, but I learn very much from all my experiences, good and bad. That is the reason why I can be happy, knowing that everything has a season.
05-11-05, 09:38 AM babthrower VelvetVoice says:
"...I understand how people blow back and forth between belief and non-belief, or think that religion is to give over your mind. However, the important thing about knowing God is your relationship to him, and the enlightened Christian should know the difference between the voice of God and the voice of organized religion.... I am writing an article about pastors and what I think their job is. I am posting it on TSH as soon as I'm finished."
This is timely indeed. I will certainly be reading it on TSH. In fact, why don't you start a thread here?
In these scary times, I think it is very, very important that people review their values, not just Christians but everyone. We need to remember that it is one thing to hold that x is good, or y is bad; and quite another to take direction from others as to what is worth dying for.
War in the name of the Prince of Peace?
********** JuanRuiz says: "As the first theologian of Christianty, Paul set the table for those following. Jews had no such view of themselves, nor do they now."
Don't forget that fundamental cautionary tale, the book of Job. Job has the nerve to demand justice from Jehovah. "You aren't treating me right. I did my duty, indeed I surpassed what is required." Jehovah replies,
"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?...Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?...Who shut up the sea behind doors...? ... Have the gates of death been shown to you?... Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons...? ... Do you know the laws of the heavens? ... Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!"
Job answers, "I am unworthy - how can I reply to you?... Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
So humans can't decide what's good or just. They need to be told. By a religious leader. May they inquire into the bona fides of the leader? Certainly not! What arrogance!
05-11-05, 09:55 AM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: Those of the religious right who define secular humanism as a religion generally do so in order to maintain it is taught in the schools, and demand equal time for their beliefs in the classroom too.
Alternatively, perhaps "secular" was added so that humanists could teach their philosophy in schools without being branded as religious!
Is the original Humanist Manifesto, in which humanists describe themselves as religious humanists, not a religious document?
05-11-05, 11:29 AM doñadiana
quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz: In the OT you have God surveying his creations and calling them good. Agreed. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good....
In the NT Paul labels one of them, Man, as inherently evil. Not knowing exactly what scripture you specifically have in mind.......but guessing that you may be thinking of Romans Chapters 1 and 2....Paul is just reciting the O.T.history of the world until Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) and after Moses and the giving of the law saying that the O.T. Covenant relationship (circumcision) was only valid as long as one was a covenant keeper (keeper of the law). In other words, I don't think that you can be saved outside of the covenant. The good nature is for the purposes of sancification of those who are already saved.
This has nothing to do with Judaism, which sees Man has having both a good nature (yetzer-tov) and a bad nature (yetzer-ra). I am not that familiar with post 70AD Judaism but from an O.T. Covenant People standpoint, I can see how that is a valid idea. Even as Christians we believe that we are constantly in a battle of the good nature (covenant keepers) vs. bad nature (covenant breakers) (Rom. 7:7-25). However, you have to be careful about comparing apples and oranges (covenant and non-covenant relationships).
Paul's view makes possible his whole message: you need Jesus because you alone are a miserable sinner, and cannot achieve salvation on your own. Paul is simply saying that you can't be covenant keepers unless you are in a covenant relationship with God in the first place. Jesus Christ, by His death and resurrection, and ascension established the New and final Covenant, not only for the Jews but also for non-Jews...all based on O.T. promises. If some Jews and Gentiles have chosen not to accept the offer, it is their choice....but the alternative is to be at war with God.
DD
05-11-05, 01:25 PM babthrower An ill-defined point is floating around: is humanism always religious?
The confusion is based on the sloppy use of the word religion in many cases. We say, 'She brushes her teeth religiously." From that comes the notion that if anyone does things scrupulously, they have a religious attitude. It's not much of a step to: "Dentistry is just another name for religion."
Many Christians used to say that Communism is a religion. They are confusing the notion of values with the broader concept of religion. Most religions have only one value: to please god(s). Thus: don't kill, because it's on the list of things displeasing to god. But an atheist may believe it is wrong to kill because it cheapens the value of life, and if life is valued cheaply, one's own life and that of one's loved ones is in some greater danger.
So religion has a value (pleasing god) and communism has a value (the classless society, for example) but communism is not a religion.
The thing that distinguishes a religion is the reverence, worship, extreme love and respect, and so forth, that its adherents invest in the god(s). Without these emotions centered around a deity-figure there is no religion. Without the notion of pleasing the god, the religious person would value only things that can be of benefit to him/herself or to the society.
"Money is the god of Communism", the confused might say. No, because much as money is loved, we do not attribute to it emotion and intellect, as we do to a god.
(Notice that even the ecology-centered groups want habitat preserved not for its own sake so much as because they think of the ecology as the human environment. 'Don't you want your grandchildren to see a redwood?' they ask.)
"The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence."
05-14-05, 03:15 AM tsaeb I think that the courts now tolerate as religion both the God-centric emotional view, which babthrower has offered, and any system of beliefs grounded in good conscience. Hence it is conceivable that legally an unbeliever can be dubbed "religious," but we in these forums would more readily agree that they be dubbed "moral," where applicable.
I suspect that the courts are taking into account one's fervor associated with one's system of beliefs, and this inclusion does give a fair shake to those nontraditionally "religious" as, for example, witches. Realize that such "religious" do not have to be moral in tandem with their alleged good consciences, which is all right in court, where religiousity is not allowed as viable excuse anyway (although always viable as a civil right, and many more can now assert religiosity as a civil right).
Anyway, if I am correct, then there had always been in courts a theistic humanist, and now the secular humanist, too, may assert a civil right of religion. So outside court the secular humanist denies religion, but inside court the secular humanist may assert that his/her right to practice religion as good conscience (or, for example, the witch's magick) has been violated. I think that witches have won religious rights cases. We will have to keep our eyes open to this developing phenomenon, allowable by a very broad interpretation of the First Amendment.
11-08-05, 01:45 AM bunkboy I don't hear much of that.
What I do hear are the endless tirades about religious neocons.
(Does that mean that there are humanist neocons lurking somewhere? Or religious paleocons?)
11-08-05, 01:27 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy: Does that mean that there are humanist neocons lurking somewhere? Or religious paleocons?
There are humanist neo-cons aplenty. They pretend to be religious, so that truly religious people will support them. But they do not act to please the god. They act to establish that which to them is the highest value: that they control government (thus the military) in their own interests, yet pay minimal or no taxes.
11-08-05, 03:16 PM bunkboy Let me digest this idea for a moment:
The highest value of "humanist neo-cons" is to control the government and the military".
My goodness. Now THAT is a conspiracy theory! Bravo!
(Can you name any?)
11-08-05, 08:04 PM babthrower The highest value held by neo-cons is to control the government and the military. Agreed?
Religious and humanist neo-cons hold this value.
Religious neo-cons differ from humanist neo-cons, though.
Religious neo-cons interpret the various religious authorities as saying that it is their god's will that a neo-con or other very authoritarian, elitist form of government prevail.
Humanist neo-cons don't have religious authorities. But they want to enlist the support of religious groups. This could be political support (in a democracy) or military or propaganda support (in fascist or other types of states). So they pretend to be religious.
You can sometimes spot them because when they are mouthing religious statements which they do not themselves believe, the more decent of them appear to be embarrassed.
(MW: Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition)
I quote this definition not because I think you don't know what a fascist government is. But not everyone knows.
11-08-05, 08:40 PM bunkboy No, babthrower, I most certainly do not agree, but I'm having fun. I don't know if I'm reading a web log or "Mein Kempf".
(And by the way, it did not escape me that you failed to name a single one.)
Anti-religion seems to be a dominating attitude at this website. I'm surprised that any mature adult, after the events of the 20th century, would dare to throw around hateful words such as these.
I don't know, maybe people just need a place to vent.
I hope you get through this stage.
11-09-05, 01:14 AM babthrower Bunkboy says:
"And by the way, it did not escape me that you failed to name a single one."
That's like denying that autumn leaves are falling, because I have not named a single one.
Check Fox News anytime for multiple examples. I thought you knew that.
11-09-05, 02:04 AM bunkboy This is just a hunch, but is your source "Outfoxed"?
11-09-05, 12:28 PM babthrower I take it outfoxed is a site that satirizes Fox. No, I don't need canned analysis. Though sometimes I cite someone else's stuff, if they do a more concise job of making a point than I do.
I remember what it was like during the Vietnam war, though. Journalists could go right in there with the troops, with cameras. No censorship. No pressure on high-level media executives. The people were allowed to see all sides of an issue. Ultimately the American people became disgusted with what they saw, and put an end to the war. Costing too many American lives. Creating a negative image of Americans, depicting them as rich bullies with lots of high-tech poisons and weapons. Americans got sick of that image, too.
But as George Bush Sr. said after the 4-day war in 1983 which devastated tiny Grenada, and during which the lives of American journalists were threatened by U.S. troops when they tried to take pictures, there would be no more Vietnams. And he was right.
Neo-cons don't dare allow the American people freedom of the press any more. They understand the innate decency of American people, and it frightens them. So they tell them that they're killing people for their own good, bringing them democracy. And they don't show the killing. And they tell them that they're doing god's work.
11-09-05, 02:44 PM bunkboy
quote: take it outfoxed is a site that satirizes Fox. No, I don't need canned analysis. Though sometimes I cite someone else's stuff, if they do a more concise job of making a point than I do.
I remember what it was like during the Vietnam war, though. Journalists could go right in there with the troops, with cameras. No censorship. No pressure on high-level media executives. The people were allowed to see all sides of an issue. Ultimately the American people became disgusted with what they saw, and put an end to the war. Costing too many American lives. Creating a negative image of Americans, depicting them as rich bullies with lots of high-tech poisons and weapons. Americans got sick of that image, too.
But as George Bush Sr. said after the 4-day war in 1983 which devastated tiny Grenada, and during which the lives of American journalists were threatened by U.S. troops when they tried to take pictures, there would be no more Vietnams. And he was right.
Neo-cons don't dare allow the American people freedom of the press any more. They understand the innate decency of American people, and it frightens them. So they tell them that they're killing people for their own good, bringing them democracy. And they don't show the killing. And they tell them that they're doing god's work.
There are many misconceptions in this entry:
1) You say you don't need canned analysis, yet you make sweeping generalizations about Fox News that are not only not true but indicate that you rarely, if ever, actually watch. The format is a balance of news/analysis from the entire spectrum between lib and con. You are obviously getting canned and severely biased information from somewhere and spitting it out here.
2) You claim that the media during the Vietnam war gave all sides of an issue, and this is also a severe distortion. What America got in their living rooms was a body count and visuals of battlefields. That's only one side. Sides that were missing: full analysis of Vietcong strategic planning, full analysis of Pathet Lao strategic planning, full analysis of Kmer Rouge stratigic planning, troop movements of all three, multi-level responses from commanders from all three on a personal level, eye-witness accounts of all relavent events, etc.
Two things are always true on this subject: the media will only report what sells, and no military will ever give full access or even half access. Live coverage is only superficial access.
3) There is no such thing as a "neo-con", it is a mythical beast that liberals need to distract from their own pathetic self-image.
4) No government in the world has ever allowed more freedom of the press than the US government has during the last 5 years. They have so much freedom that they can openly conspire to bring down the presidency with not a single retaliation on the part of our mean, disgusting, totalitarian president.
With all due respect, you don't have a clue about freedom of the press until you've lived in a country with a state owned media and actually does retaliate against it's own citizens and pump out news stories written by government officials.
You obviously live in a fantasy world with almost no connection to the real world. How else can we explain the delirium in your posts?
11-09-05, 03:51 PM babthrower bunkboy says:
"You say you don't need canned analysis, yet you make sweeping generalizations about Fox News that are not only not true but indicate that you rarely, if ever, actually watch."
Hmmm, non sequiter. Don't see many of those around these days.
You see, it does not follow that making sweeping generalizations is evidence of acceptance of canned analysis. Making sweeping generalizations can be done quite independently -- as your post so fully demonstrates.
Your point #2: "What America got in their living rooms was a body count and visuals of battlefields."
Not true. There was battlefield footage, but also interviews with American soldiers, and quite a lot of on-the-spot commentary by journalists. There were interviews with Vietnamese villagers and mayors, with French nationals still in Viet Nam, there were histories of the origins of the conflict -- I myself produced one such for a small television station.
Compare that with the shots of Patriot missiles exploding in the night sky with loud cheers and cries of 'another hit!' when in fact no scuds were knocked out of the sky -- none. The Patriots were simply exploding; Israel had to build its own anti-missile devices to protect itself from the scuds.
Which sounds most like propaganda from the military-industrial axis?
That is why G. Bush Sr. said, "We have kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."
That's why G. Bush Jr. said, "Those who are not with us are against us."
There is no room for honest debate.
Your point #3: "There is no such thing as a "neo-con", it is a mythical beast... "
Then why did you introduce the term into this thread? Be careful, people may wonder just who is living in a fantasyland.
I think I will leave this thread now, because once the personal attacks and insults start, it is no longer honest debate, but diatribe; that's something I'd rather avoid, since it throws more heat than light on the topic. This will allow you to have the last word, and I'm sure you'll take full advantage of that privilege.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1197 | Location: Connecticut, USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Your point #2: "What America got in their living rooms was a body count and visuals of battlefields."
Not true. There was battlefield footage, but also interviews with American soldiers, and quite a lot of on-the-spot commentary by journalists. There were interviews with Vietnamese villagers and mayors, with French nationals still in Viet Nam, there were histories of the origins of the conflict -- I myself produced one such for a small television station.
All US service members have security clearances, either implied or awarded, and all of them come with requirements of secrecy of varying degrees. You have never seen an interview with any American soldier that has any depth into any military action, and you never will.
All military forces do this.
Journalists are always biased and always edit. They never portray the whole story, only what will sell. Almost certainly they will never actually have the whole story. Wars are far more complex than that.
And after seeing what you write here at this website, I'm convinced that whatever you produced for your local station could not have been substantially meaningful. You are too prone to fabrication. +++++++++++++++++++++ 11-09-05, 04:14 PM bunkboy
quote: Compare that with the shots of Patriot missiles exploding in the night sky with loud cheers and cries of 'another hit!' when in fact no scuds were knocked out of the sky -- none. The Patriots were simply exploding; Israel had to build its own anti-missile devices to protect itself from the scuds.
Which sounds most like propaganda from the military-industrial axis?
With this one, I don't know where to begin.
You clearly have never researched how guidance systems work or how effective they are. I would suggest the following topics: illuminators, spin requirements of gyros, gps locators, transmitter locators, weapons control computers and interfaces, missile tests (which are taking place all the time), and perhaps talk to a fire controlman or a marine or soldier rated for missile systems. My unit successfully tested a surface-to-air system that took out a target the size of a fence post traveling at MACH 3, and we got it on the first shot. Scuds are sitting ducks in comparison.
You are not privy to weapons reports on patriot missiles or any other weapons system. Stop pretending to know something you don't.
We have a fairly large variety of surface-to-surface, surface-to-air and air-to-surface inventory, and we are constantly developing more. If the patriots didn't work, they would be replaced by any of a dozen waiting in the wings.
Your report given here is false.
11-09-05, 04:25 PM bunkboy
quote: There are humanist neo-cons aplenty. They pretend to be religious, so that truly religious people will support them. But they do not act to please the god. They act to establish that which to them is the highest value: that they control government (thus the military) in their own interests, yet pay minimal or no taxes.
I may have written the word first, but this is really where the worms were opened. Your post immediately after this one illustrates the mythical beast in an alternate fictional light that I had not yet encountered.
I was certainly surprised.
You have a knack for labeling people you don't like, don't trust, have never met, and/or know nothing about. Nothing is more clear than your lack of actual knowledge.
11-09-05, 05:13 PM babthrower Conyers, John Jr., Opening Statement by The Chairman of the Committee On Government Operations Subcommittee On Legislation and National Security. An oversight hearing on The Performance of The Patriot Missile In The Gulf War, Tuesday April 7, 1992
Garner, Jay M. Major General U.S. Army, Testimony before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, April 7, 1992
Performance of the Patriot Missiles System in the Gulf War from Report of the House Committee on Governmental Operations, One Hundred Second Congress, First and Second Sessions, 1991 - 1992, Report 102-1086, pages 179- 188.
Postol/Lewis Review of Army's Study on Patriot Effectiveness, Letter from Ted Postol to Congressman John Conyers Jr, Chairman of the Committee on Government Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, September 8, 1992.
Federation of American Scientists -- search their web page for lots of good primary source materials, including the improved performance of the Patriots in 1997.
11-10-05, 02:13 AM bunkboy
quote: Our critics say the available data on what Patriot did is inadequate. They want more track files, detailed recorded data, precision instrumentation results and the like so they can study them in the comfort and safety of their offices. Tell them to leave their offices and talk to the men and women of the U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Force who sat in the Patriot shelters with Scuds flying around them and ask them what they saw. Tell them to walk the streets of Dhahran, Riyadh, Tel Aviv and Haifa and ask the men, women and children of those cities what they saw and whether Patriot did any good. And if that's too hard, tell them to read the hundreds of letters from ordinary citizens who voluntarily took the time, in the middle of a war, to express their feelings in writing about what Patriot did for them. Tell them to compare the bottom line of what happened in Saudi Arabia and Israel from Saddam's Scuds with any other situation in which tactical ballistic missiles were fired and against which no defense was present - the V2's in London in World War II, Iraqi Scuds in the War of the Cities, the three Scuds that were fired on an Afghan marketplace. Lastly, ask them if Saddam Hussein's strategic plan was successful. Was Israel driven to respond? Did Saudi Arabia back away from their support of the coalition's campaign because Saddam's Scuds were taking too great a toll? Did the political will of the American people falter because of what they saw in the streets of Israel and Saudi Arabia?
Why then are we here? We are here because individuals such as Theodore Postol have waged a continuous campaign against us and the Army, accusing us of some sort of wrong-doing. He claims that "Patriot didn't work," that we consciously exaggerated its success, that we didn't collect enough data, that it was "scandalous" that we didn't instrument Patriot for detailed data recording, that we were "irresponsible" in modifying Patriot software during the war, and that we and the Army entered into a "conspiracy" to deceive the public. These allegations are wrong, cannot go unanswered and that is why we are here.
Sounds like democrats who want to smear a republican president and an engaged military.
What in the world were you thinking?
11-10-05, 02:40 AM bunkboy Alrighty then. A congressional committee looked at video of missiles hitting scuds that were traveling at Mach 5.
(Do you see a problem with this?)
Take a look at your first link. It mentions a request for the army to provide "missions". That's what you want. Not video. Roll Eyes This is how it works:
A "mission" is an order to fire a missile. If you want to fire 5 missiles, you have to have 5 missions. Initially, a mission contains the information necessary to engage a target, an engagement time, and the authority to engage.
The reason why the committee knows precisely how many missiles were fired is because the information is kept in strict accountability--all munitions are inventoried, all the way down to 9mm bullets and firing pins. All discharges are followed up with written reports.
Upon firing the missile (when convenient), written reports are made accounting for the missile and what happened with it. When the all clear is sounded, an investigation is conducted on the ground to determine the extent of damage, possibility of a live warhead, and assessment of the strategy or tactics of the enemy.
Comprehensive reports are submitted to the commanding officer within 24 hours and later with updated information where needed. These are passed up ultimately to the theater commander, in this case, General Schwarzkauf's staff.
All of the information contained in those reports have a secured status of appropriate level and "need to know" attached. They are assets of the US Army, and the only people with the authority to release them are in the White House and Pentagon. Unauthorized release of anything with a classified status is not only punished, there is layer upon layer of security measures to ensure it doesn't happen.
(It was humorous to read the congress complaining that the Army was not providing them.)
Now do you understand why I said you are not privy to missile information? The best you can do is assessments of video, and you wonder why nobody saw anything!
11-10-05, 04:33 PM Silja Guys, this is an interesting discussion but it has no place in the religions forum. Please take it to The News and Reference forum on this site.
11-10-05, 05:53 PM babthrower Okay, Silja, will do.
Actually I have made my point. Bunk accused me of a number of fairly serious ethical offenses. By posting all these sites, which clearly show the strong disagreements among people at the highest levels of the military and government within his own country as to matters of fact, put the lie to his accusations.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
