Inside Account of Gitmo and Extraordinary Rendition

A religious scholar does not give people a "greater sense of spirituality", but he may give himself a "greater sense of spirituality". I am not knocking religion or priests/rabbis/clerics; I am knocking religious scholars. They have no function in society, and exist to satisfy their own curiosity.

 

You made a dumb argument. You, as in, the person known to me as DaDakota.

There is nothing "personal" about it, other than the fact that you made the argument, and I subsequently labeled it dumb. Repeatedly. With explanation. When this failed to register with you, I referred to you as "dense". That may have been "personal", but I prefer the term accurate. Your argument is fundamentally flawed and grossly overzealous - yet you refuse to alter it or even acknowledge the counterpoints. There is no small amount of irony in you taking this position while elsewhere railing against religious extremists...

I digress.

I cannot force you to acknowledge that which runs counter to your purview and makes you look foolish. I can, however, point out that this is occurring, as a warning of sorts to other people still under the illusion that your posts in this thread are worthy of rejoinder. That being said, my dear DD, please accept my apologies for any insults you deemed egregious.

Good day, and may you post more intelligently in other threads.

 

I was offered a postilion as an interrogator at Gitmo in March 2002 after returning from Kyrgyzstan post 9/11. I'm so thankful I turned it down!

cmiller

 

I'm not sure if you are using some kind of crazy semantics here, but religious scholars certainly give people a greater sense of spirituality.

Most religious texts are centuries or even a couple a millennium or tow old. Many followers seek to better understand the meaning of texts written that long ago. Religious scholars can help clarify what cultures and traditions existed in that time, and may provide more meaning to scriptures and religious writings. Exploring greater knowledge about a religion and it's texts requires religious scholars.

Furthermore the rabbis/clerics/priests certainly needed the benefit of religious scholars to gain their understanding of the religion and and its texts. They in turn are one of the main conduits for getting the message across to followers of that religion.

Without religious scholars you'd have people studying texts on only a surface level of understanding and never grow deeper in their spirituality.

I can give you specific examples if you'd like.

 

Sean Penn and many many many many many many others.

I didn't just believe Sean Penn and a few wing nuts (left or right).

 

Why are you arguing for something you don't believe in?

Why did Gandhi not have to take POW, rape women or kill children? That was a war, but it certainly wasn't the war you're describing.

You view things in 2D. There either shouldn't be war, or there should be brutal all-out violent warfare. The reality is that there are many types of war and many types of piece. I wouldn't even categorize it that way - I would say there are degrees of war and peace, and some degrees of war are never acceptable and some degrees of peace will never achieve stability.

There are more than two possibilities, but I think you've shrunk the number of possibilities into two because it fits your view. I think that much is clear with your statement of (paraphrased) "if we didn't wipe out these people, then we wouldn't have the peace we have today." What Peace? Peace for who? It's painfully clear that you mean peace in America (which is not totally true) and it's also clear that when you say "We" you're talking about Americans. Coupled with your "it's about winning" piece, that's quite an insane way to think about peace. For illustrative purposes, imagine how peaceful the world would be after an all-out nuclear war - NO PEOPLE!!

Perhaps you haven't thought of it this way, or perhaps you have and you still believe this. Frankly I have to say that the position you have presented (as I've understood it) is morally reprehensible, cannot be respected and deserves for people on here to ensure that less people respect it. If you are the kind of guy who thinks you either have to pursue total peace or all out war (including elimination of large pockets of humans, rape, murder of children, etc) despite being an educated member of society then that's worrisome. It's just such an inhumane belief and I seriously hope you reconsider it.

There will never be one definition of peace, and there will never be one set of morals, and in a world where those things are true, you're passively and indirectly condoning that type of war because total peace will never be in place.

 

i really want to know what tom brady has to say about this before i make a decision.

(seriously, ****ing drew brees is being used as a source here? wtf is wrong with people?)

 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mo-ddYhXAZc" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

Was reminded of this lol

 

A few op-eds in the NY Times related to this thread:

Give Guantánamo Back to Cuba

My Guantánamo Nightmare

 

^^^Disgusting.

 

Lakhdar Boumediene? If I can't pronounce it, I can't trust it. Get Drew Brees on the phone.

 

State Dept. Closes Office Working on Shutting Guantánamo Prison