Let's Get It Right This Time

October 20th, 2008 at 03:24pm Post Staff 43

With the Presidential election just weeks away, important decisions on the Iraq War have come up. Some people want us to pull out of Iraq and there are others who believe we need to stay the course. I personally don't know what the answer is. Every time I think we should leave I start to think Iraq will become a hot bed for terrorists, and when I think we should stay I look at all the soldiers coming home in body bags and some with no limbs.

I do know this though. I know that if we could find a way to get all of our allies to send troops and help in the rebuilding process we would be much better off. Even without troops, if we could get all of our allies to help out that would be a huge boost. Five years ago when President Bush decided to invade Iraq he did so without all of our main allies. I think this was a huge mistake because the world wasn't saying that Saddam Hussein was good and should stay in power. The only argument was about the method the world should use to get rid of the awful dictator.

Imagine how much better it would have been to have the whole world come together and get rid of Hussein and rebuild Iraq. Even though we are deeply entrenched and making improvements in Iraq with the surge, we could still use more countries to step up and help us rebuild Iraq and give the Iraqi people a nation they could be proud of. Hopefully the next President we elect, whether it be John McCain or Barack Obama, will seize this historic opportunity. Every one of our allies wants to see a thriving Iraq it's just a matter of how we do it. Hopefully the next President will find a way to do it with all our allies.

Entry Filed under: Aspen, Foreign Policy, United Post

38 Comments Add your own

1. Dawn Lamping | October 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Perhaps we should consider that our allies might be reticent to be our allies -- considering that we have violated many international laws, including the Geneva Convention regarding the use of torture and war crimes. And those who are willing to, perhaps those are "allies" we don't really want anyway.

Is it our job to create other countries?

In the past, citizens of every country who valued freedom and the rule of law which protected natural rights looked to the US as the proof it could work and could be done.

Check out Torturing Democracy and ask yourself why the world is so disappointed in the US -- we have not been aware and have allowed our laws to be perverted from their purpose of protecting individual rights to being used as the excuse for unexcusable behavior.

Our government does not contest the fact that they were using, under policy guidelines, the structure and methods of torture developed under the Inquisition, Hitler, and Stalin. It is very important to be aware and then to create our own country we can be proud of once again. The rest of the world is watching us, and unfortunately will likely need to come to our rescue. It's not a high confidence vote for our reputation to create any viable government.

http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/

We need brave lawyers who will defend our values by exposing and fighting in court those who would twist and abuse their powers to behave in the ways we never thought could "happen here."

Peace.
Dawn
2. Mitch Mulhall | October 20th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Dawn,

[methods of torture developed under the Inquisition, Hitler, and Stalin]

Let's get it right, indeed. To say your points are "substantial" would be to demean the term.

The Inquisition, by which I presume you mean The Spanish Inquisition, was an ecclesiastical tribunal convened in the late 15th Century. Hitler and Stalin were contemporaries in the first half of the 20th Century. The idea that there is a "substantial" aim among these three, and more the Bush Administration, is an unlettered conclusion and a form of tedium that only a partisan can entertain.

You strike me as far more thoughtful.

Cheers,
3. Mitch Mulhall | October 21st, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Ah, what the hell? No one's reading. Shameless In The Evening youtube link:

Get it while it lasts...

Cheers,
4. reckless G | October 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm

I'm reading, and I'm incredulous. I'm assuming this was written by Jonathan. If so, it looks like he just fell off the turnip truck. I'd respond, but I wouldn't even know where to begin!

Maybe a little Aspen Post archive studying is in order for the new Post Staffer. At least give him a chance to catch up to where most of us are by now on the Iraq war issue.

Mitch, I don't quite get why you are chastising Dawn. I think her points were legitimate and could be summed up as; torture is medieval, despicable, and not in keeping with what America says it stands for. A laudable message which you harshly dismiss because of what I think you're deeming an inaccurate historical comparison. You're usually more charitable than that.
5. Mitch Mulhall | October 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm

G,

To intimate that the guiding motives of Hitler, Stalin, Ferdinand II, and Isabella I were anything like one another is simplistic pablum at best, political rhetoric at worst. Everyone bristles at such references for good reason. I suppose I'd be more charitable were such references as fully understood as they are freely tossed around.

Cheers,
6. Dawn Lamping | October 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Thanks for the feedback, I need to explain. Clearly misinterpretation is in order here.

I used these terms since this point was made in the video I posted the link to, the PBS special entitied _Torturing Democracy_. I watched this video and it was quite the piece of journalism. (http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/)

The video makes the case, with what they purport to be documentary evidence, at any rate various officials make the claim as well, that the style of protocol being used at the US "torture camps", prisons such as Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, is modeled on a training program used in the military.

This training program was created to prepare soldiers for the event of being captured by the enemy and "tortured" in camps such as those used in Russia, Germany, and the Inquisition. It puts soldiers through a simulation, with various horrible acts which all are based on other historical instances of their use. These historical precedents, according to the video, are those I listed.

The movie makes the case that these methods, which were seemingly rejected by the US in international documents such as Geneva, are the exact ones being used.

In other words, the very training used in the military, which was created to simulate the experiences of Stalin's, Hitler's or a medieval prison w/ torture, is apparently (if the movie is accurate) being used in our own US camps against our prisoners. It is quite alarming of course to know that legally the prisoners we have taken are not eliglible for such legal protections as trials and such. Some are being released without charges being filed, very recently.

It is shocking to me as a US citizen to hear/see these allegations. If the evidence presented in the film is accurate and trustworthy (which speaks to the journalistic integrity of PBS); and I have respected PBS over the years, then it is truly an issue we must deal with as a nation.

What about our reputation in the world? I must put my energies toward a future in which we again use diplomacy, rather than illegal prisons, as our method. I doubt until that point we will have much success in "building democracies" in other nations.

"In order for the law to be respected, it must be respectable." -Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

I prefer to have dialogue rather than labeling or pithiness. The legal methods of those who would "torture" others seem quite essential to me; unless it's the kind of thing you think is acceptable, it is something which bears attention, dialogue, and thus some possiblity for change.

Peace.
7. Dawn Lamping | October 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm

argh, to make things *clear* I meant to say *clarity* was in order, and that *misunderstanding* was at play.

sorry.
8. Mitch Mulhall | October 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Dawn,

I do believe that when you write "peace" you mean it.

Unfortunately, in my ken, there is more to it than that.

If it's any source of solace, I wish it weren't so.

Cheers,
9. Dawn Lamping | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am

What do you think? I am not sure I understand your meaning. What do you mean by "there is more to it than that"?

Dawn
10. Dawn Lamping | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am

Also in rereading the thread I want to make clear that your interpretation of what I was saying was not at all what I was saying.

I was not linking these three examples personally, I was referring to their reference in the video _Torturing Democracy_.

The reason those three examples came up in the context of the movie was that the military themselves reported these were the styles or specific actions they used in training scenarios. The only reason they gave for those three was that the training was supposed to be based on real torture examples from world history which were actually used, hence their value for training soldiers to survive such a scenario.

Neither I nor the movie made any other suggestions about these examples. But I do understand that the emotional imprint surrounding these names from history is strong, which engenders strong reactions in all of us. I do respect and honor your responses but am quite clear I was not trying to make any points about linking the causes or motivations for these actions throughout history. They were just the examples the military used to base their survival training upon.

Peace,
Dawn
11. reckless G | October 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 am

Dawn,

Thanks for the explaination, I get it. Clearly, Mitch does not.

[To intimate that the guiding motives of Hitler, Stalin, Ferdinand II, and Isabella I were anything like one another is simplistic pablum at best, political rhetoric at worst. ]

Not once did Dawn speak to motive. She was talking about method. For you to bash her comment on a basis without any connection to her actual point makes it look like you're not really paying attention.

Besides, even if she was talking about motive, I believe you are wrong. The motive for torture is always the same; and it's purpose is twofold. First; to glean information, such as names of cohorts and conspirators, an abdication or confirmation of belief, or a confession of guilt. Second is intimidation, to discourage anyone else who might be considering the path of the torture victim.

So it doesn't matter whether it's the inquisition, Hitler or the U.S. military, the motive and apparantly according to Dawn's video; the method, are exactly the same.
12. B Jon Traylor | October 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Hey! Sue!!! "Falling off the turnip truck" is my line!!! And you know it!!! But yes, once again, well, occasionally, I'm agreeing with you. And Mitch? I like you, you a helluva good man, but you kinda got a bit too harsh on this Dawn lady. I actually liked her post, and agree.
I am soooo ready to get back into this melee'!!! Be cool, stay in school, I'm thinkin' I might just go back to school. Peace. - - J
13. Mitch Mulhall | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm

G,

[Not once did Dawn speak to motive. She was talking about method. For you to bash her comment on a basis without any connection to her actual point makes it look like you're not really paying attention.]

I don’t think Dawn was talking about method. Why would she? Torture in its various forms is a glaringly obvious example of man’s inhumanity to man. I don’t care whether it’s thumb screws or water boarding. What’s more relevant to me, and I think to Dawn, is what drives people to the point where torture becomes a good idea.

[Besides, even if she was talking about motive, I believe you are wrong. The motive for torture is always the same; and it's purpose is twofold. First; to glean information, such as names of cohorts and conspirators, an abdication or confirmation of belief, or a confession of guilt. Second is intimidation, to discourage anyone else who might be considering the path of the torture victim.]

I’ve rarely read a more superficial analysis. You skirt around motive for torture by declaring a singular rationale without sharing what it is. Then you give us two marginally effective outcomes of torture that do nothing to shed light on motive.

Let us take a brief walk into history, shall we? The driving motive in the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile was to ensure and maintain Catholic orthodoxy. Stalin tortured and murdered to eliminate whole ethnic sections of Russian peoples and to eliminate all forms of political opposition to the establishment of a socialist state, including Leon Trotsky. Hitler sought a perfect race, but he overlooked torture and went straight to mass murder. This is not to say there was no torture in the Third Reich; to the contrary, you need look no farther than Dr. Josef Mengele, who, were he alive today, may well have argued that he conducted his twisted experimentations on human subjects in the name of medical- and military-science.

Dawn’s original contention was that what gives rise to torture is the same then as it is now. I think I have succinctly disproved the veracity of this assertion. Yea, maybe mine is a dark, Nietzschean perspective, but that’s the way I see it.

No doubt you will disagree.

Cheers,
14. reckless G | October 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Mitch, you’re correct; I disagree.

I don’t get your assumption that Dawn was talking about motive not method. The very sentence that got your goat in the first place, I believe was…

[Our government does not contest the fact that they were using, under policy guidelines, the structure and methods of torture developed under the Inquisition, Hitler, and Stalin.]

“Structure and methods” not motive. You made a pretty big leap there and then went off on Dawn for something she didn’t even say.

OK what’s more relevant to you, and you think to Dawn, is what drives people to torture. Yes that’s probably the bottom line here as she was pointing out the fall of America’s reputation as a just and humane country.

I thought I was pretty clear on motive, but…

[You skirt around motive for torture by declaring a singular rationale without sharing what it is. Then you give us two marginally effective outcomes of torture that do nothing to shed light on motive.]

The singular rationale was in fact the same twofold “marginally effective” outcomes. Information and intimidation is the purpose of torture. You gave some excellent examples.

[The driving motive in the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile was to ensure and maintain Catholic orthodoxy.]

Intimidation.

[Stalin tortured and murdered to eliminate whole ethnic sections of Russian peoples and to eliminate all forms of political opposition to the establishment of a socialist state, including Leon Trotsky.]

Intimidation.

Putting aside Mengele’s demented motives, I’m sure the Nazis tortured those who were caught organizing or carrying out a resistance, both to intimidate, and to get information on others in the resistance organization. Saddam Hussein did the same. He controlled the Shia uprising by using torture to get information and to intimidate others who might think resistance was a good idea.

How is that any different than what the U.S. is doing? We’re torturing prisoners both to get information on possible terrorist operations and to intimidate the general population into submission. Our motive is absolutely no different than that of any other totalitarian leader, military conqueror, or petty mobster.

Democracy…pffffff!

[Dawn’s original contention was that what gives rise to torture is the same then as it is now. I think I have succinctly disproved the veracity of this assertion.]

And I believe I have succinctly disproved the veracity of your assertion.

No doubt you will disagree.
15. Mitch Mulhall | October 24th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Hmmmm... Must've touched a nerve. It's not like G to end so weak.

[Our motive is absolutely no different than that of any other totalitarian leader, military conqueror, or petty mobster.]

Really?

This may well be the central fissure of our differences. In fact, it's probably best to leave it right there--before someone calls attention to something more stark than a bikini wax.

Cheers,
16. reckless G | October 25th, 2008 at 5:41 am

Mitch,

To sum up, very simplistically, the motive for torture is to maintain control over others, to dominate. Right now, the U.S. is trying to control the same people that Saddam Hussein much more successfully controlled with the very same means; miltary force, threat, intimidation, murder, and torture.

Please don't stop now. I'd really like to hear your version of the U.S. government's motive for torture. Obviously you believe there is an altruistism to our actions that has never been shared by any other torturing entity.

Do tell.
17. Dawn Lamping | October 26th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Hey Mitch,

"Dawn’s original contention was that what gives rise to torture is the same then as it is now."

What in my post gave you that idea? What specific words?

Dawn
18. Mitch Mulhall | October 26th, 2008 at 10:30 pm

G,

It’s almost not worth mentioning that in your premise, “the motive for torture is to maintain control over others, to dominate,” your use of the infinitive to maintain suggests that control existed in the past and exists now.

Let me stipulate that there’s nothing altruistic about torture, including our actions in the broader war against terrorism.

I referred to Nietzsche, earlier in this thread. I see the left clinging absolutely to the idea that torture is wrong, as assuredly as they cling to the idea that war is wrong, and pro-lifers are wrong, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I see this thinking as a response to fear, what Nietzsche called “slave morality.”

I think, and I have no basis in to prove this, that the Bush Administration addressed the question of whether to torture in terms of consequence. Would torture give us useful information that would stave off future attacks on the American peoples? Or would non-torture subject our citizens to further atrocities on the scale of 9.11?

As you ponder, let me add that I see in your latest letter to the editor that you’ve cast Ron Paul aside for Barack Obama.

This is no surprise.

Cheers,
19. Dawn Lamping | October 26th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

"What’s more relevant to me, and I think to Dawn, is what drives people to the point where torture becomes a good idea."

Again, what in my posts gave rise to this interpretation?

If you want to know what I think, please ask:)
20. Mitch Mulhall | October 26th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Dawn,

Apparently, I've got you all wrong. There's no basis in my thinking that rational people will stipulate that torture is bad and seek an understanding of why some among us choose to do so.

What do you think?

Cheers,
21. Dawn Lamping | October 27th, 2008 at 6:29 am

This thread began with an honest question about the issue of the Iraq "actions" or "war" as it affects this upcoming election. My response was that we as Americans would do well to think about "blowback" or the consequences to our reputation in the world when our president, via executive decreees, has determined the rules of international war (Geneva) simply do not apply to us.

My argument was that citizens need to research the issue (by all means don't just rely on what I say -- find our for yourself through multi-sided perspectives) and consider that our actions have changed drastically our reputation in the world. The blowback danger may result in our being *less* secure as a nation than we would have via the use of diplomacy. Certainly something to consider.

And it's my contention that anytime an institution exists which is outside, above, or not subject to the rule of law, this is a dangerous thing indeed.

I really have nothing to say about the motives of those who have subverted the rule of law in this instance.
22. reckless G | October 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am

Mitch, you write;

[It’s almost not worth mentioning that in your premise, “the motive for torture is to maintain control over others, to dominate,” your use of the infinitive to maintain suggests that control existed in the past and exists now.]

Well it goes without saying that only those who have control in the first place are in a position to torture those whom they have control over. Since the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. has had control of that nation’s people, maybe not total and complete control, but still “the ability or authority to manage or direct something” which is the definition of control.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, most of whom are innocent, have been dragged from their homes in the middle of the night; bound, hooded and dragged off to prison, there to be tortured and sometimes killed. Isn’t that what all the bleeding-heart conservatives and pseudo-patriotic rednecks were so incensed about when Saddam Hussein was doing it to “his own people?” Didn’t we ride in on our white horse to end that kind of behavior?

[I think, and I have no basis in to prove this, that the Bush Administration addressed the question of whether to torture in terms of consequence. Would torture give us useful information that would stave off future attacks on the American peoples? Or would non-torture subject our citizens to further atrocities on the scale of 9.11?]

I’m confused; altruism is defined as; “the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good” so your description of the Bush administration’s motive; to justify torture in order to protect U.S. citizens, goes against your belief that…

[Let me stipulate that there’s nothing altruistic about torture, including our actions in the broader war against terrorism.]

Which is it?

Altruistic motive or not, as I’m sure you’re well aware; torture does not produce useful information that will protect our citizens. And if we lowly servants know this, then so do the suits who made the decision to torture. So knowing that torture was not going to get them the information they desired, they still made the decision to torture. Hmmm. Maybe there was an ulterior motive?

Maybe they just wanted to send a message to the world like; “Don’t f**k with us!” Maybe part of getting the complicity of the Iraqi people is to make sure they know that if they land in a U.S. prison they could be humiliated and tortured like those photos they’ve seen “leaked” to the media, so they’ll be less likely to join the insurgency.

That is exactly how Saddam operated. Only, as I’ve pointed out; he was much more successful at countering the insurgency against his government. He was actually able to turn Iraq from a collection of squabbling tribes into a productive, prosperous, modern, well run nation. So far the U.S., despite all of the bombing, imprisoning, torturing and killing we’ve done in the last 6 years, has not managed to return the electrical grid to its former output, provide clean water, trash disposal, or a modicum of security to the people of Iraq. No wonder they wish they still had Saddam in charge!

[I see the left clinging absolutely to the idea that torture is wrong, as assuredly as they cling to the idea that war is wrong, and pro-lifers are wrong, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I see this thinking as a response to fear, what Nietzsche called “slave morality.”]

Well this might be as you like to say; “the central fissure of our differences.” Leaving out the incongruous “pro-lifers” (because really, who isn’t pro-life?) most of modern society agrees that torture is wrong, and war is at the very least; not good for children and other living things. This is where I detect in your comments, an undercurrent of superiority based on some notion of altruistic motive. You display a palpable distain for people like Dawn and I who label our government’s actions; illegal and immoral. When, in your “master morality” is torture not wrong? How is the Iraq war justified? These are questions you have left unanswered through your many posts and comments on said subjects.

Dawn,

You are absolutely right about the blowback effect of torture. But this is nothing new for the U.S. Blowback from our foreign policies and military adventures in the Middle East was what we experienced on 9/11. The bottom line for those in control of our government is that blowback is good for business. Blowback, when described as “Muslim hatred for western freedom” is justification for even more military action and hegemony in the Middle East. They and their corporate friends have made billions off of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they don’t care if the world hates us or we continue to get attacked. In fact, all the better for them.

Your belief that the people of America should find out what’s going on and stop it is one I’ve long shared and attempted to bring about through efforts of my own and in conjunction with the Roaring Fork Peace Coalition. I believe as you do that citizen awareness and activism is our only hope for restoring America’s reputation for justice, freedom and democratic rule, and making us less of a target for attack. So thank you for seeking truth and speaking out.

One last thing Mitch…

[As you ponder, let me add that I see in your latest letter to the editor that you’ve cast Ron Paul aside for Barack Obama. This is no surprise.]

Well it was a surprise to me. Maybe you should’ve told me I was going to make this decision the last time we had lunch. Anything else about myself that I should know?

Like I said in my letter, I had NO intention of voting for Obama until Palin came on the scene, and the only reason I announced my change of mind in the Glenwood Post was because it was an absolutely irresistible way to get the goat of my letter writing opponents, which as you must know; since you know my heart better than I do, is my only purpose in life.
23. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 8:31 am

[my only purpose in life...]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. I think you should run for office. There's no possible way your opponent would survive.

Cheers,
24. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 8:48 am

[Which is it?]

It's not an either/or proposition, as you suggest, but an evaluation of good and bad consequences. My apologies for not making this point clearer.

Keep in mind that your new candidate of choice will have to make decisions every bit as difficult as this. Joe Biden says Senator Obama has "a spine of steel." What I've heard and read does not comport with Biden's assessment.

Cheers,
25. reckless G | October 27th, 2008 at 9:57 am

Mitch,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but at this time I have no intention of entering the political fray. I prefer to remain a citizen activist.

[Keep in mind that your new candidate of choice will have to make decisions every bit as difficult as this. Joe Biden says Senator Obama has "a spine of steel." What I've heard and read does not comport with Biden's assessment.]

I hope Obama is more flexible than Biden portrays. I don’t want some stiff-spined belligerent a-hole making policy decisions. I want someone who is generous, compassionate, and flexible enough to withstand the harsh winds of the aforementioned blowback. I don’t want a leader whose kneejerk reaction to the words and actions of our enemies lands us in even more unnecessary and costly wars. I would hope our next president will begin a diplomatic process of coming to agreements with our enemies before the policies of the previous administration bring more terrorist attacks to our shores.

The Tao te Ching, chapter 76; Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life.

Despite having been written thousands of years ago, the Tao te Ching has much to say about governing a nation that is surprisingly applicable today…

Chapter 17; Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men doesn’t try to force issue or defeat enemies by force of arms. For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself. (blowback)

Chapter 60; Give evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself. (change the policies that give rise to terrorism and terrorism will cease)

Chapter 61; A great nation is like a great man; when he makes a mistake he realizes it, having realized it, he admits it, having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow he himself casts. If a nation is centered in the Tao, if it nourishes its own people and doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others, it will be a light to all nations of the world.

Now a rhetorical question; who appears to be more centered in the Tao; McCain or Obama?
26. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am

By suggesting Senator Obama was "steel-spined," I don't think Senator Biden was intimating that Obama is "some belligerent a-hole." But if we're searching for the right words to characterize Obama's spine, "oatmeal" and "jello" leap to mind.

Also, I see your metric for Presidential suitability is Taoism. While you may be alone in this, as an American citizen, you're free to base your choice on anything you like.

Cheers,
27. reckless G | October 27th, 2008 at 10:45 am

On what basis do you ascertain the right words for Obama’s spine as "oatmeal" and "jello?" Has he neglected to stand up for what he has said he believes in (as McCain has done)? Has he refused to fight for the rights of disadvantaged Americans (as McCain has done)? Has he flip-flopped on his positions (as McCain has done)?

Apologies to Jimmy Ibbotson and Eloise Ilgen, but I’d prefer that all Americans use the Tao as the metric for presidential suitability, rather than the Bible, which has already led us down the path of intolerance, violence and cruelty, as Christianity so often does.
28. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

[all Americans]

Should I infer from this statement that you reject freedom of religion?

Cheers,
29. reckless G | October 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

No I advocate freedom FROM religion, especially in the voting booth. Like Conniff said on his show today, something like; faith has no truck with the body politic.

I'm for absolute seperation of church and state; the faithful are excused from voting, leaving the selection of our secular leaders to the secular citizens.

In such a case, the wisdom of Taoism (being a philosophy rather than a religion), might just replace the fearful faithful factor in voting and we would get REAL change.
30. Star Eagle | October 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Greetings all,

I again don't have the time to read word for word but a scan gives me a clue the "debate" continues.

I offer a site below that gives info to "those with eyes to see".
http://freedocumentaries.org/

If you click onto the three Power of Nightmare links you will find they reference the Neo-Con-Al-Quida, hand in hand, bond. Interesting!

Then of course I highly recomend the Zeitgeist triple header at the very bottom of the our films on the right.

These sites are offered for the balanced perpective and are not recomended for the true fanatics of the world however as they tend to cause their world to TILT and the words "game over" to show up on the screen of LIFE.
31. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm

[faith has no truck with the body politic]

So again I ask, do you reject freedom of religion? It's pretty clear you have no use for it. Sounds to me like you give it no room.

Cheers,
32. Mitch Mulhall | October 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Star Eagle,

Nice pin ball machine imagery.

Cheers,
33. reckless G | October 28th, 2008 at 5:53 am

Mitch,

Oh we’re on religion now? And you’re trying to back me into a corner? It won’t work; in Taoism there are no corners, the universe is round.

To answer your question: there is plenty of room in America for whatever imaginary friends anyone wants to believe in. Just don’t take them with you into the voting booth.

Outside of elections, feel free to worship your gods and demons all you want. But don’t even think about putting an amendment in my state constitution designating what a “person” is.

Abortion, Gay marriage, Alcohol and Drug use, Prostitution; the government has no business legislating morality, especially the morality of a certain fanatical cult rampant in our society.

I’m just hoping the Rapture occurs before the election. Jesus take ‘em all!
34. Mitch Mulhall | October 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am

My my my. Your multiculturalism appears to stop at the line between the secular and the religious. Based on your last comment, the religious are free to believe and worship whatever god they want, but they need to leave their faith in the car when they vote. This, after illustrating above how you've made your voting decision through the prism of Taoism. Now I realize Taoism is not a religion, but a philosophy, but I dare say you'd balk at anyone who suggested you keep your Taoist thinking out of the voting booth.

Cheers,
35. reckless G | October 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am

Last time I checked, the phrase was “separation of CHURCH and state” not separation of philosophy and state. It wasn’t my idea; it was the founder’s idea. All I’m saying is that in light of the recent rise to power of the religious right, perhaps we should consider making the separation more concrete.

It’s quite apparent that Christianity has failed America. In recent years, Americans voting their “faith” has given us more division, more intolerance, more violence, more poverty, less environmental protection and less personal freedom, not to mention scary inept leaders. So why not try a new direction? Taoism offers the equality, justice, compassion and reasoned decision making that our forefathers intended for America.

Let me be clear though, I’m not just talking about banning Christians from voting. Anybody whose religious beliefs put their morality above others and who think that our nation’s laws should be changed to reflect their version of reality, shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Yes, it’s a harsh assessment, but a necessary one if we want to keep America from becoming a repressive theocracy ruled by an inexplicably influential minority.

So if you believe 9/11 happened because God wanted to punish America for tolerating homosexuals, if you believe Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath over abortion, if you think women are to be subservient to men, if you think God wants you to forgo birth control and have 18 kids, if you think it’s ok to trash the environment because this earth is going to be destroyed in Armageddon anyway, then please…do not vote in the upcoming election or any other election in which your myopic views could result in the end of freedom and equality in America.

The wise student hears of the Tao and practices it diligently.
The average student hears of the Tao and gives it thought now and again.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If he didn’t laugh, it wouldn’t be the Tao

-Tao te Ching, chapter 41
36. Mitch Mulhall | October 29th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

[Last time I checked, the phrase was “separation of CHURCH and state” not separation of philosophy and state.]

A distinction without a difference, to be sure, but nevertheless a noteworthy adjustment to an age-old adage:

one Taoist, one vote.

Indeed.

Guess that makes me a C student.

Cheers,
37. reckless G | October 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am

Let me get this straight. You, an educated, intelligent and reasonable man, honestly believe that there is no difference between those who make their choices based on a belief in an imaginary deity’s supposed preferences for human behavior, and using rational thought to practice a philosophical discipline that relies on scientific and reality based data.

Is that so?

If you ask me, letting the ultra-religious vote would be like letting 5 year olds pull the lever for their choice for president.

WWSCD? What would Santa Claus do?
38. Mitch Mulhall | October 30th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

[WWSCD?]

Move to Canada.

Cheers,