Did I see Quantumshroom speaking up in a -negative- fashion against the *President Elect*?

Oh my goodness! He must be Un-American and Un-Patriotic, because ALL GOOD CITIZENS must blindly follow their President without question, lest be labeled as subversive Anti-Americans!

Tides have turned my friend.

We can only hope that they will ultimately honor their oath to the Constitution instead of a corrupt administration that could easily abuse their power of the military.

It would be a horrible irony to see our trusted military (which took an oath to defend the law of the land) execute unconstitutional anti-citizen/citizen suppression in such a manner as to harm their fellow countrymen.
Hopefully there will be enough commanders that follow the UCMJ which clearly dictates that it is not only a member of the military's right but however is their duty to not follow illegal orders.

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")

I remember having to study this when I was in boot camp in the USAF so I thought to look this up.

We have to trust our men and women in Uniform - there is little other choice really.

And to echo Obama's campaign more of the same. Isn't this the exact same kind of thing the Bush Administration has been doing? Firing everyone who doesn't goose step to the administration's tune. Boy howdy that's who I want, someone who'll fire anyone who doesn't blindly follow orders, and then slap a high school friend in the vacant position (They didn't mention that bit). Not part of the good ole boy politics my ass.

They keep calling her a reformer, what has she reformed, aside from the jobs of people who disagree with her?

My point is, Barack isn't being jingoistic in this clip. If anything, he's breaking down his reasons for selecting Biden and commenting on his opponent's Veep pick pretty specifically. Certainly, he's nothing like McCain, who seems to have the jingoistic-tunes on repeat, blindly guiding his blind followers blindly into the past.

Righteous eh? -sarcasm. This is fucking bullshit.

Bush should be made to serve time in that prison, along with all his staff who blindly followed him like sheep.

The "real" news:
Our mission

The Real News Network is a television news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism.
Trans: no meaning found

We won't blindly follow wire services or official press releases that attempt to set the news agenda. We will cover the big stories of the day, but we will broaden the definition of what's important.
trans:(we'll do like they do, shape our agenda by what and how we decide to editorialize(report)

Nice try, again, symptoms and no real clue as to the source of the dilemma...
more muckracker children, afraid to call the emperor nekkid...

adam - that you see no evidence of the existence of god does not mean that he doesn't. I think he probably sees the evidence every day. I won't quibble with you over the nature of that evidence, as I'm making a supposition anyway, but I think you know what I'm getting at. As for why not assume god is occasionally evil, cruel, or moody, I think he does address that in the talk. His answer is that if that is in fact the case, he wants no part of that god.

The distinction between the death of one and the death of hundreds of thousands I thought would be clear, at least in the context. The death of one is generally seen as a natural part of life, even when it occurs by some ridiculous accident. Even in the case of intentional actions, say the murder of an individual vs genocide, I think most people have a much harder time wrapping their heads around the latter than the former, theists and atheists alike. The world did change on the day of the tsunami, e.g., the civil war in northern Indonesia basically ended right then and there. One of the former rebel leaders is now a governor(?) of one of those territories. Yes, there is still a lot of strife, but the active military campaign was ended.

The failure of doctrinal views of God in modern times is due to many reasons. As you say, for many it is simply a matter of lack of objective evidence, but for others it is not, because objective evidence was never a criterion for them.

He's not trying to define God, but rather come to some comprehension of God. And ultimately, he answers "I don't know". To me, he seems to be specifically trying to avoid a preaching or sermonic attitude. I think to an extent you're right though, his talk does presuppose the notion of divine existence, but he has to start somewhere. He is addressing a question that billions of people have wrestled with, many of them far smarter than you or I. Even Einstein recognized a certain divinity in the universe, though his views would hardly be in line with the Anglican Church. But I think Tom Honey is heading in the same direction. He says for a long time he was afraid of openly questioning church doctrine, but ultimately to remain true to himself and his congregation, he found he must delve into these questions.


>> ^Johnald_Chaffinch:
i see how it's been useful, but now it poses a threat because we need to have our eyes open to reality to save our species - not blind following of things that are made up.

Yes yes yes! That is, I think, exactly what Honey is getting at. But he is not inventing God, that was done a long time ago. Nor is he inventing reasons for God's existence. That humans are spiritual beings and have deeply spiritual experiences would be hard to deny. He is offering a starting point for many people to begin to reconcile all these disparate notions, and at the same time pointing out the failure of religious doctrine.

Anyway, I thank you guys for the very interesting comments. I had hoped some more folks would jump in on this, but I suspect it is for many a closed case, and for many others too tiresome. The atheism/theism conversation has been repeated here so many times, and often with some rancor, so I understand a certain reluctance to get into it again. That was partly why I posted this - I saw it as an interesting starting point for a conversation contemplating the nature of Nature, with a heavy dose of compassion and understanding. Perhaps it's time for another silly kid sift from me.

i'd partially agree with the concept of a god if it was just said that it was something
we just hope exists that was the creator of what we hope to be a biocosm. hoping that it's
a good being or bunch of beings too. a lot of assumptions, but that is what it would take. even then it would just be a vague hope, and no evidence to believe it.

see how scientology has become seriously followed like a religion - despite it being made up by someone that was alive recently, and that he was a fiction writer.
examples like this i think indicates that belief in a father figure creator (and other attached ideas) are memes that we re-create through some inherited archetypal mental process. it propagating itself is probably one of the reasons we're a successful species.

i see how it's been useful, but now it poses a threat because we need to have our eyes open to reality to save our species - not blind following of things that are made up.
i feel at one with the universe through knowledge of it and how i'll always be part of it, why invent some 'god' thing? we're adults now.

On the more positive side, it's nice to hear soldiers thinking about the issues at hand instead of blindly following orders, and speaking up about it.

I can't wait for the day when all of those in the world charged with fighting - starting or ending wars, defending or attacking countries, and the like - all collectively lay down their weapons and say to their leaders, "I've had enough, I'm not going to fight this stranger. If you want to die for [insert pointless cause], do it yourself."

The people hold all the cards, if they'd only realize it and stand up. When only one in a million does it, the effort usually lacks the strength necessary to change things.

this is a little biased in the uk's favour (being the bbc at least its not cnn/fox type bias) but if nothing else it gives a fair idea of the type of view we had of the war over here, which is useful.

i think everyone values the uk-usa relationship, but there's got to be a point where we dont blindly follow.

my 2 cents

edit: does make me laugh how the military (on both sides) get screwed over in every conflict by the politics.

The whole point of the campaign is to beg other networks not to follow the Fox on this.

From the link - http://foxattacks.com/iran
"Dear ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN,

"My station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at FOX News."

That is CNN's Christiane Amanpour explaining why the major television networks failed to accurately inform the public in the lead-up to the Iraq war, choosing instead to follow FOX's lead.

Now, FOX is beating the drums for war with Iran. Robert Greenwald's short film, "FOX Attacks: Iran", outlines the evidence from the station's own broadcasts, comparing their reporting before the Iraq war with what they are saying now about Iran.

You have a sacred responsibility to the American people to provide accurate and reliable information so we can best make the decisions which affect our lives. We urge you to accurately and thoroughly report all sides of this important story.

Please do not blindly follow FOX down the road to another war."

I don't find you malicious rembar. My comment to Gluonium was not meant to be malicious either. He told me that my mothering choices were evidence of true-believer syndrome.

In my naievety I figured he couldn't be a parent and be so self-righteous, because anyone who's been through it knows, it's bloody hard work and deserves empathy, not attack.

Despite the hope that we all may have that our children's health will be manageable and smooth sailing-life isn't always like that and as the person responsible for their health, we have to make what we believe to be the best choice for them, whatever that it is.

If a parent were to say to me, "I've tried everything, and the only thing that works is Ritalin." I'll cringe inside, but I'd never, ever say "You're blindly following your doctor's advice on this one, don't you know how this has become the cure-all drug for any kind of children's behavioural problem-the quick fix-it, but with serious side-effects that you'll only regret".

I wouldn't post a comment like it either, because I don't know what it's like to be in that situation, nor do I presume that in all cases, Ritalin is harmful to children, so I can't be a judge.

In the same way, since he's not a parent yet, Gluonium doesn't know what it's like to be in a responsible carer's position, so he can't be a judge either, even if he thinks he has a handle on what constitutes scientifically proven healing methods.

White, I agree with you in the sense that those who make a choice only because other chellovecks do are being untrue to themselves. You can't possibly come to a conclusion about such a huge question of human existence by blindly following one crowd or another/being indoctrinated from a young age and to say you hate atheists in general because of the doings of a small percentage of pseudo-this or that speaks volumes of how you group/label people by taking extreme examples and deducing that all of them must be like that. Discovery comes from within...most atheists will tell you it was a long, gradual and decidedly eventual/inevitable outcome, if you research all available knowledge on the subject in earnest. Viddy well, brother...

Enzo.. it's that way of thinking that makes this world a bad place. "why should I care, I didn't issue the orders".
If you have no objective, and you don't care, I would think you should be worried, because obviously your superiors wouldn't know what they were doing.
Secondly, as a soldier in your nation's army, your primary goal is to defend the interests and lifes of the citizens of said nation. Not the interests of the politics. I know americans have no experience about this, but that's exactly the reason why almost all dictatorships that fell were brought down by soldiers from within the country.
Do you honestly think that blindingly following orders like a sheep, questioning nothing, and not caring if the conflict you're envolved with is not only not fair, but in Iraq case, even not legal, is the best course of action?
You know, at the eyes of the law, the person who fired the weapon to kill someone is as guilty (if not, more) than the person who ordered the kill. think about that.
The problem with this world is apathy and lack of sympathy for other human beings.

Osama Bin Forgotten !

Theoretically, when a murderer masterminds a crime, he/she is sought by law enforcement agents, captured while still being assumed innocent, tried in a fair court, and the FACTS presented to a jury of peers determines guilt or innocence of the accused crime.

It is now FIVE YEARS after the horrific crime of 09/11/01 was committed …..please take a moment now to reflect on what the U.S. government has accomplished in its efforts to bring justice for this crime.

The largest, most powerful, most funded agencies in the history of the planet have NOTHING to show today, except a continuous string of FAILURE after failure after failure.

Bbbbbillions of our tax dollars wasted…...precious lives of good-hearted brave young men and women wasted…….the reputation, meaningfulness, and heart and soul of a once great nation wasted……the future for the next generations wasted………..

Incompetence, injustice, crimes against humanity, misery, death, suffering ……this is the legacy of King George and his faithful blind followers.

seek truth.