View Full Version : Religion Within the Community
Hey all-
I have searched using the search button here on PS.com as well as ran some BOOLEAN searches through google (ex. site:professionalsoldiers.com jew AND military AND in) for this question but it has led to me starting a thread.
Religion has been discussed in these forums as it relates to conflict between warring nations but I have yet to see it being discussed on a local level within the SF community. There have been talks of the "sexually confused" to women's rights on the battlefield (wait, what rights.. the IDF did a great test study integrating women on the front lines and revealed what we all probably knew) but my question is still left unanswered. Enough with the verbosity (read: circumlocution) and here is my question.
Have you found that conflicting religious views within the community or ODA has interfered with your ability to work as a team? Has there even been much religious diversity? I ask this as I am in a minority religion, Judaism, and after talking with people's opinions in the military, it doesn't matter how great I am on paper, the fact remains that I am Jewish and they see that as a problem. When searching PS I learned of somebody named "Super Jew" who I could only assume to be Jewish but what have been your experiences. I was nominated to the USAFA but was forced to deny the nomination due to a very large Jewish conflict that occurred there and my father wouldn't let me go - on top of the fact that he hates the military and my desire to serve.
Sorry for the long post. I appreciate anybody's willingness to respond.
Best
Morgan
Almost 13 years in the Army and have personally never seen issues arise due to religion. Even when I was in the same fire team with another Catholic, a Jew, and a Muslim - no issues whatsoever.
Race issues, unfortunately I've seen. None with religion though.
I have never served in a unit as small or as tight as an ODA, so I cannot speak for team life. Hope this helped.
If you wear anything on your sleeve you are going to get poked by your team mates. Anything.
Can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Everybody I served with were SF Soldiers first, then their "whatever", be it religion, politics, etc. Works best if it is kept that way.
A number of us here worked with and/or knew "Super Jew", a great SF Soldier.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-26-2008, 05:23
The only problem I have ever had with religion came from those not in the military that saw it as their perogative and calling to save us from ourselves. To a person they were self-serving, narrow-minded, idiots. And yes "SuperJew" was a great soldier and a good man. I have no idea with whom you are talking that thinks your being Jewish is a problem but it appears to me that they have the problem. As Pete stated, we are all SF soldiers first and everything else is relegated to second place.
Guys,
Some great SF nicknames on this thread were Super Jew, Buddha, and Little Jesus--which some of y'all may recall. However, there were no religious issues associated with any of them. I knew Christians who wore a Buddha or two or more as either decoration or...hmmm...the easy answer would be for local custom and acceptance. I only know of three instances of religious beliefs causing problems amongst us as a team:
-A young medic who was a devout Mormon going off on a bunch of animists being trained by a team and resulting in their having to be recalled from an MTT
-A CSM who got religion and kept a "secret" book in his desk drawer on the exploits of any of us who were less Christian in his eyes; some guys ran afoul of him and his f'in book
-An ODA XO who was a super-conservative Baptist and never melded with our team; I never saw the guy smile, either, and as the medic diagnosed him as having an incurable case of CORDS (cranial optic rectal diarrheal syndrome)--having his head lodged so firmly in his ass that it gave him a perpetually shitty outlook on life.
For the remainder of the guys I knew in SF, religion was a non-issue. Hell, how can you fault a guy's beliefs if he's an animist...or whatever...yet one of the kindest souls you'll ever meet and is willing to lay down his life for you?
Richard's .02$ :munchin
Thanks for the responses, guys. I completely agree that if one goes into a situation with a chip on their shoulder, the people around them will be more than willing to turn that seemingly minute chip into a substantial "block", so-to-speak. I was just curious due to the close-nit nature of an ODA. It's good to hear that our best are also our brightest - but then again, those generally go hand-in-hand. I appreciate the quick feedback; this definitely made a positive impact.
All the best and very respectfully,
Morgan
rudelsg2
04-26-2008, 07:48
If you wear anything on your sleeve you are going to get poked by your team mates. Anything.
Can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Everybody I served with were SF Soldiers first, then their "whatever", be it religion, politics, etc. Works best if it is kept that way.
A number of us here worked with and/or knew "Super Jew", a great SF Soldier.
+1
Red Flag 1
04-26-2008, 07:57
Richard,
I like the CORDS diagnosis
I all my time in the military and on teams I have severed with people of all Religions, race and creeds. Never have we had a problem because you were a soldier First. We gave everyone hell and if you opened the door we would attack the soft underbelly and you would catch hell. We never meant anything bad that was just how we were.
Saw a few that talked about their religion but never made it an issue. We always respected someone beliefs. When the bullets start flying everyone starts believing in something and we were always a team.
When everyone is Grey or green all day you sort of begin to blend in and everyone are brothers.
Dragbag036
04-26-2008, 09:34
Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free". The fact that one has to define themselves based on what others think keeps you imprisoned. Not only on the subject of Religion but race as well. If I had listened to everything anyone ever told me, I could or could not do based on my faith or demographic, I would be no different than those who blame everyone for their ills. My first team consisted of a born in Germany Team Sergeant, awesome dude, and a team leader with a Yiddish last name, we all gave each other so much crap that we learned to live that way. It didn't fricken matter what our backgrounds were. My father is a Preacher, I have my own thoughts about God as do many others. We do not push our thoughts on to others. If the conversation arises, as sensible adults, whether atheist or not, we all point out what we think and do not try to change one another's views. If that is what defines you, by all means great, but as the great Theologian of SERE school once said, "Thank you for the opportunity to divide you all". Get over it!!! Religion, as well as prayer, is a private relationship or conversation between you and whoever you deity is or not. In combat no one cares what your religion is. I do care that whatever you do to get yourself right, doesn't happen in the middle of the fight.
Team Sergeant
04-26-2008, 10:24
One of the principles this country was founded upon was freedom of religion, any religion. This is one of the few countries that tolerate all religions and as such its military tolerates all religions. We as SF soldiers understand that principle quite clearly, except we understand it on a global basis.
That said we learn to understand and tolerate. I've known SF soldiers that have “hunted” werewolves on behalf of a very scared “people”. They did not laugh at the people but rather understood their fears and successfully alleviated them.
It’s all part of being situationally aware. This awareness is part of our training; it’s not just battlefield awareness but human awareness.
In all my years I've never heard of any religious issues concerning SF soldiers, none. That said, on an A-Team you’d get more grief for your choice of beer then your religious preference.
And while I didn’t personally know the "Super Jew" I did know the Mad Iranian….;)
Team Sergeant
In all my years I've never heard of any religious issues concerning SF soldiers, none. Team Sergeant
TS et al,
The devout Mormon kid I mentioned was a young SF Medic and was immediately put out of group when his team returned from the MTT as NOBODY wanted him after that. Go figure. :D
The CSM went by the name of Preacher and eventually became the USAJFKCENMA CSM.
Richard
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-26-2008, 11:22
Preacher
That would be Preacher H? Please tell me that there was not two of them:D
longrange1947
04-26-2008, 12:39
Interesting Richard, we had a junior medic in Thailand in 73 that decided that he did not like what we were doing nor could he tell a lie if captured. He was relegated to med room and driving the vehicle down town. While he was Mormon, we had another Mormon on that trip with no problems and I have had two other Mormons, that I know of on my team. Never had problems like that since then.
Super Jew was the first NCOIC of SOTIC and when he left in 85 for Taco Tech we gave him SGM stripes with a Star of David instead of the normal star as a going away gift. He wore the dam things at the SGM Academy dining out and caused a bit of a stir. :D
All of this said, the religion is not the problem, the individual is.
NousDefionsDoc
04-26-2008, 14:22
on an A-Team you’d get more grief for your choice of beer then your religious preference.
LOL - and that's the truth!
That would be Preacher H? Please tell me that there was not two of them:D
The one and only. He would overhear NCOs talking about the behavior of other NCOs at the NCO Club or the Rod and Gun or wherever and write down what he'd heard in his ledger which he kept in his desk...then he'd bring these things up later when he was on a rant about something or if you were on the carpet for something totally unconnected. Everybody steered clear of him and he had little clue of what we were really doing.
Richard
longrange1947
04-26-2008, 17:27
How many know how he, "Preacher", got his "religion"? :munchin :D
mark46th
04-26-2008, 19:32
An acquaintance of mine from SOG for "Religion" on his dog tags had 'F-4 Phantom'...
2 Block Secured
04-26-2008, 20:29
Georg Scott, God rest his soul, was the most religious SF soldier that I ever met. He didn't wear it on his sleeve and try to proselytize but lived it through his actions.
Before we would infil on an FTX George would tell me, "Jim, I just talked to God and He said things were going to be all right." and everything did seemed to go like clockwork. Then when he didn't go with us to wherever, it was like a circus of maniacal clowns was following us around.
Other than Georg, a person's religion was something that was the last thing on anyones mind.
Like LBJ said to his Protestant constituency in the south to assuage their fears of voting for JFK, a Catholic, (paraphrased) "Nobody was asking him his religion when he was pulling your boys out of the Pacific."
But then again that is politics, the second oldest profession in the world and not much different than the oldest.
That said, on an A-Team you’d get more grief for your choice of beer then your religious preference.Or music...Dave Titsworth (RIP) was a classical music afficiando...he would play it pretty loud, if he made to his team room before the other guys...and would laugh like a hyena when the griped about his taste...
mark46th
04-26-2008, 22:54
If you weren't a country music fan in Group, it was best to stay quiet...
I ask this as I am in a minority religion, Judaism...
If you were a Taoist, Scientologist, Wikkan, etc. maybe I'd agree that.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-27-2008, 05:05
"Jim, I just talked to God and He said things were going to be all right." .
I had a radio operator at Ben Het that, on days we were not getting new bunkers dug by NVA rockets, would come up out of the commo room, stand on top of the TOC roof, spread his arms, look up into the heavens and shout, "Dad, thanks for another beautiful day". One day after he did that, he went back down into the commo room, sat his butt into his chair, started to hit the speed key when a short in the generator sent him careening across the commo room floor. I told him it was a lightning bolt:D
An acquaintance of mine from SOG for "Religion" on his dog tags had 'F-4 Phantom'...
I used "TAC Air" on the religious preference line of my ID tags...until they made me replace it in OCS. I told them TAC Air always answered my prayers but they insisted it wasn't a recognized religious belief as listed in the regs. From then on I had "Christian."
Richard :munchin
If you weren't a country music fan in Group, it was best to stay quiet...I used to go out to country & western; bars/clubs all the time!:lifter
Stay safe.
longrange1947
04-27-2008, 11:08
I had Barbarian for years until the same complaint was made by a SGM, "not recognized religion". :D
Jack Moroney (RIP)
04-27-2008, 11:36
My tags always said "no preference".
The Reaper
04-27-2008, 13:21
My second team sergeant had Druid on his.:D
Yes, you will take crap from your teammates over your religion, your age, your appearance, your physical abilities, your sexual preferences, and every other thing possible to try and annoy another person about, and you will do the same to them, because they are your brothers.
TR
Before getting out in Sept '70 after 2 RVN tours, I got to spend 6 months in 7th group.
I remember CSM Hodge and a few of his rants about the "Big Ranger in the sky." Heard a couple stories about his "conversion."
Wierdest experience was all the young highly trained troops all revved up with nowhere to go due to SF withdrawing from RVN.
There was a Medic, real smart guy, who was a devout Mormon.
He announced during a barracks bull session that he would never kill another human.
Name was Dyrood or similar. Wierdest thing I ever heard.
mark46th
04-27-2008, 20:21
Mike- You are exactly right about being all revved up. I was one of those young guys ready to kill a Commie for Christ. I finally ended up w/ 46th Co for 2 years but that was the closest I got to Vietnam...
2 Block Secured
04-27-2008, 21:16
Chaplain jumps, best jumps ever because they had coffee and donuts on the DZ.
Before MACO, the Chaplain JM handed out St. Christopher medals to all that wanted one.
During MACO he misread the briefing board and said that jump altitude will be 125 feet (it should have been 1250).
A lone voice in the back asked, "Can I have another medal please?"
We laughed.....
Everybody's attitude is definitely something I fit along with; sounds just like my fraternity. This is definitely better than what it was like for me at Marine Military Academy in Harlingen TX during HS. Then again, I was one of 8 cadets there that wanted to be there vs the 400 or so that didn't (it was, after all, a military school), so I wouldn't say I was surrounded by the highest caliber of people.
I look forward to being a part of this community in a couple of years when I start my enlistment (I am finishing school now in DC - Sophomore)... and to get started I am doing the Extreme SEAL Experience (http://www.extremesealexperience.com/1410.h.EXTREME_SEAL_TRAINING_COURSE_OPTIONS) (all three phases) in VA in a month :)
Thanks, everybody, for making me realize that an ODA is truly a group of intelligent warriors.
So you're planning on paying $1400 to be yelled at and miserable for several days, and then rushed through a "range" session and civilian skydiving? Have fun.
... and to get started I am doing the Extreme SEAL Experience (http://www.extremesealexperience.com/1410.h.EXTREME_SEAL_TRAINING_COURSE_OPTIONS) (all three phases) in VA in a month :)
FWIW, you don't sound much like SF material to me. IMO, if they aren't paying you to make you miserable, you're either one of those guys PT Barnum said was born every minute and who doesn't know what to do with his hard earned money or what they're selling is slicker than owl shit and your taste buds ain't working. :D
Richard - been there, done that, and I ain't going anywhere or doing that again without max TDY! :munchin
More than once, many more times than once I've been in some totally stupid situation, think rain, muck, dark of night,swamp, cold, hot, etc - and turn to the SF guy next to me and said..
"And to think civilians pay money to do this shit."
More than once..."And to think civilians pay money to do this shit."
I don't even want to remember how many times I was too hot...or too cold...or too wet...or tired...or too scared...or too bored...or my boots were too tight...or whatever. But I never paid anyone to do that to me...they paid me. And for the record--I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat!
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It's a going away gift somebody is giving me as I am studying abroad for 18 months. I had a choice of materials things or this experience, and I chose the experience. I will admit that there is a good 300-400 dollar premium you pay for these guys (from what I have experienced researching other places covering individual topics - ), but damn, what experience to go through for a civilian. At the end of the day, I'm not paying for it - the best way to buy something is with OPM... other peoples' money. :D
mark46th
04-29-2008, 19:39
If you want to pay to get beat up and yelled at, go to Las Vegas, find a 6' tall redhead with freckles and a big chest and give her the money...It'll be a lot more fun...And if you are really lucky, you might see god...
If you want to pay to get beat up and yelled at, go to Las Vegas, find a 6' tall redhead with freckles and a big chest and give her the money...It'll be a lot more fun...And if you are really lucky, you might see god...
Or you can try Pat Pong. :D
Richard :munchin
If you want to pay to get beat up and yelled at, go to Las Vegas, find a 6' tall redhead with freckles and a big chest and give her the money...It'll be a lot more fun...And if you are really lucky, you might see god...
...only if you pay for it :D
mark46th
04-29-2008, 20:09
Ah yes, Pat Pong. Butterfly Bar... Did you ever go to the Cellar Bar? It was owned by an ex-SEAL named Bill Book...
Ah yes, Pat Pong. Butterfly Bar... Did you ever go to the Cellar Bar? It was owned by an ex-SEAL named Bill Book...
Yep--BB was pissed at George and me for barricading ourselves in the pisser with three girls one night. Customers had to use "unauthorized" areas to relieve themselves until we came out. :D However, the Amor was my favorite--cute Filipino who played the piano and sang "The First time Ever I Saw Your Face" in a way that made your heart melt...or mine, at least. Also left the Opera for the Miami (SEAL hangout) after a few escapades that didn't go so well. Balcony and New Stockholm in the Chinese sector were also good for an evening of fun, fighting, and...whatever. "Those were the days, my friend...we thought they'd never end"...and now we're just a group of FOGs. :D
Richard :munchin
Did you ever go to the Cellar Bar? It was owned by an ex-SEAL named Bill Book...
Here's a pic I had of the Cellar. Remember the yellow footprints painted on the street leading down the alley to the bar? :D
Richard
mark46th
04-29-2008, 21:54
You know Bill's wife shot and killed him?
bailaviborita
05-22-2008, 16:06
At the team level there was never a time that I saw a problem- like someone said it was team first, everything else second.
Interesting topic to me, now that we're deployed to countries wherein religion plays somewhat of a role with our enemies wrt why they are fighting. Reading "When Religion Turns Evil" while overseas made me think a little about "absolute truth" claims and other self-righteous positions that could lead to conflict. I saw two interesting things: people with little education and little religious knowledge save for what the local religious leader preached on- supporting to certain degrees "the insurgency", and US officers encouraging Christian Bible readings at meetings wherein Coalition partners were present- to include those from Moslem nations. I also saw war murals painted with Christian symbols on them in areas locals could see them- albeit on military installations. All-in-all, I think my beliefs were actually dulled a little upon encountering the average Moslem, the "average" US military Christian, and seeing similarities.
It made me think the other day- what if I was a Moslem officer in charge of a Moslem brigade deploying to South Carolina to build stability and fight the "insurgency" there. I thought I would learn English with a southern accent, learn to eat fried chicken and greens, and learn the Baptist religion- at least enough to fake it while attending revivals and prayer meetings. I don't see how I would make any progress with the people if I maintained a long beard, dressed in a ME outfit, spoke Arabic, and faced Mecca when I prayed.
3SoldierDad
05-22-2008, 16:26
what if I was a Moslem officer in charge of a Moslem brigade deploying to South Carolina to build stability and fight the "insurgency" there. I thought I would learn English with a southern accent, learn to eat fried chicken and greens, and learn the Baptist religion- at least enough to fake it while attending revivals and prayer meetings. I don't see how I would make any progress with the people if I maintained a long beard, dressed in a ME outfit, spoke Arabic, and faced Mecca when I prayed.
Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places. Global altruism is uniquely a Western phenomena. They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position. Would they travel far to intimidate via violence? Yep, absolutely. To kill? You're darn toot'n they would. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over - Which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - Our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first.
In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population) - With a mere Arab, it might work....A Moslem, maybe...An Arab Moslem, however - Never (okay, call me a bigot). My apologies, but my imagination just isn't so fanciful.
Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I have come to know - I can't even wrap my mind around it.
I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
bailaviborita
05-22-2008, 16:33
Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places - They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position - to initimidate via violence - Yes. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over (which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first). Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I can't even wrap my mind around it.
I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
No offense taken- and the abstraction isn't worth considering IMO- I was just trying to think through what would be effective in an environment I understand- i.e.- South Carolina. In terms of a Moslem going in there, maybe that is comparative to us going into Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, then to affect change, maybe we should dress like them, grow beards (everyone, not just SF), stress language more, and "become" Moslem during our tours...
Maybe not, but was a thought I had.
Astraeus
05-23-2008, 18:34
Moslems as a group don't give two hoots for "locals" in other places. Global altruism is uniquely a Western phenomena. They would never travel far away to persuade a man to his position. Would they travel far to intimidate via violence? Yep, absolutely. To kill? You're darn toot'n they would. They don't start with a Western sort of empathy of the other guy - To "win" him over - Which by the way owes tons to our Judeo-Christian tradition; this is true whether you believe in Jesus Christ or are a Jew - Our tradition has been impacted by 2,000 years of considering "the other guy" first.
In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population) - With a mere Arab, it might work....A Moslem, maybe...An Arab Moslem, however - Never (okay, call me a bigot). My apologies, but my imagination just isn't so fanciful.
Your example is such an abstraction from the Moslem world view that I have come to know - I can't even wrap my mind around it.
I don't mean to be offensive - Maybe, it's just me.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Are you aware of the origins of the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort it out."?
I wonder how that fits into your so called Christian tradition of "2,000 years of considering the other guy first."?
It was Eight hundred years ago during the Albigensian Crusade. During the seige of Beziers, Arnaud Armaury, Abbot of Citeaux, when asked by his soldiers how to tell the difference between men women and children of the splinter sect of Cathars, and "true" Christians he said ""Kill them all. The Lord will recognize those which are His."
I see your point that concepts like tolerance, diversity, and cultural empathy are in general very foreign to the Middle East. Hell, I've never seen so much bigotry towards both outsiders like myself, and minorities who live within those countries, whether they are Iraqi refugees, Jews, or gypsies.
Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society? They were killed because they were dark skinned and were wearing turbans, and of course this meant that they were Arab Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm
"In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population)"
Do you know anything about the administrative systems of the Ummayad and Abassid Muslim empires? By any measure they were they had the most tolerant stance in regards to the ruled peoples' religious beliefs of any other empire during the time period. Non-Muslims, including the Jewish Arabs thrived in trade under their rule, were allowed to implement their religious legal systems within their communities, keep their own places of worship, retain their own markets and banking systems. Zakah (taxation of non-believers) was charged non-Muslims because they were not required to serve in the military. Compare that to the Crusades of the same time period, and what their SOP was in regards to other forms of belief.
Take a look at one of the main dissenters within the Church in regards to the Crusades, English philosopher, scientist, and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon. His predecessors: he was also inspired by the work of early Muslim scientists. His successors: His brand of philosophy which made early steps towards later enlightenment philosophers got him in trouble. The Condemnations of 1277, which banned the airing of certain philosophical ideas resulted in him being placed under arrest by Jerome of Ascoli, the Minister-General of the Franciscan Order.
Bacon was not only a predecessor to the earliest European advocates of empirical method, (he was the first to recognize the visible spectrum of light), he was getting in trouble with the Church for laying some of the groundwork for philosophy's later assault on organized religion's strangle-hold on science and thought up to that point. It was Modern era enlightenment philosophy that led to the increasing liberalism during the 1700-1800's, which eventually lay the groundwork for widely held concepts in Western society like "tolerance," "diversity," and "xenophobia" etc. not our "Judeo-Christian" tradition. These concepts became possible when the Church finally got out of the way after locking up or burning people for three hundred years who dared speak or publish something the church did not approve of.
Anyway, that's my 0.02, now I'll shove my foot down my throat.
Astraeus
05-23-2008, 19:01
Hey, I forgot to throw in an important bit, which is the significant role the reformation played in the development of the current shape of Western thought, philosophy, etc., but still my view is still this: the concept of the Christian religion having a glorious 2000 year history of tolerance towards the "other" is patently false. Sadly, the history remains, with no regard for what Jesus taught.
3SoldierDad
05-23-2008, 19:56
Are you aware of the origins of the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort it out."?
I wonder how that fits into your so called Christian tradition of "2,000 years of considering the other guy first."?
It was Eight hundred years ago during the Albigensian Crusade. During the seige of Beziers, Arnaud Armaury, Abbot of Citeaux, when asked by his soldiers how to tell the difference between men women and children of the splinter sect of Cathars, and "true" Christians he said ""Kill them all. The Lord will recognize those which are His."
I see your point that concepts like tolerance, diversity, and cultural empathy are in general very foreign to the Middle East. Hell, I've never seen so much bigotry towards both outsiders like myself, and minorities who live within those countries, whether they are Iraqi refugees, Jews, or gypsies.
Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society? They were killed because they were dark skinned and were wearing turbans, and of course this meant that they were Arab Muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3154170.stm
"In my opinion, David Kilcullen and his counterinsurgency wisdom would be absolutely lost on the Arab Moslem (where he was the foreigner trying to win over the native population)"
Do you know anything about the administrative systems of the Ummayad and Abassid Muslim empires? By any measure they were they had the most tolerant stance in regards to the ruled peoples' religious beliefs of any other empire during the time period. Non-Muslims, including the Jewish Arabs thrived in trade under their rule, were allowed to implement their religious legal systems within their communities, keep their own places of worship, retain their own markets and banking systems. Zakah (taxation of non-believers) was charged non-Muslims because they were not required to serve in the military. Compare that to the Crusades of the same time period, and what their SOP was in regards to other forms of belief.
Take a look at one of the main dissenters within the Church in regards to the Crusades, English philosopher, scientist, and Franciscan friar Roger Bacon. His predecessors: he was also inspired by the work of early Muslim scientists. His successors: His brand of philosophy which made early steps towards later enlightenment philosophers got him in trouble. The Condemnations of 1277, which banned the airing of certain philosophical ideas resulted in him being placed under arrest by Jerome of Ascoli, the Minister-General of the Franciscan Order.
Bacon was not only a predecessor to the earliest European advocates of empirical method, (he was the first to recognize the visible spectrum of light), he was getting in trouble with the Church for laying some of the groundwork for philosophy's later assault on organized religion's strangle-hold on science and thought up to that point. It was Modern era enlightenment philosophy that led to the increasing liberalism during the 1700-1800's, which eventually lay the groundwork for widely held concepts in Western society like "tolerance," "diversity," and "xenophobia" etc. not our "Judeo-Christian" tradition. These concepts became possible when the Church finally got out of the way after locking up or burning people for three hundred years who dared speak or publish something the church did not approve of.
Anyway, that's my 0.02, now I'll shove my foot down my throat.
Good points...
I made many sweeping generalizations; such as Americans love freedom - Obviously, all Americans don't love frredom - Of course, not all Christians and Jews and their communities are tolerant. Many, many particulars can be shown to contradict what I say - especially when one looks at the christian religion from the 5th to 17th centuries, especially the organized church as against Judeo-Christian teachings of tolerance.
It was the culture that let reason prevail - The reformation was all about getting the church to evaluate its actions in light of scripture.
I'll stand by my overview; as wobbley as it may seem.
We disagree. Ain't America great! (not always, but generally...;))
Thanks.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Still, how do the multiple killings of Sikhs (who are neither Muslim, nor Arab) throughout America subsequent to September 11th, which occurred throughout the United States point to the diffusion of enlightened Western tolerance in American society?
Maybe I missed it, but I've only found one single instance of a Sikh being killed in an admitted case of "mistaken identity" shortly following 9/11/2001, that being Balbir Singh Sodhi. Since you implied widespread killings, I was wondering if you might be able to either cite your sources of many Sikhs being murdered due to misidentification, or correct the overstatement. Your BBC source only lists Mr. Sodhi.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-24-2008, 05:17
Maybe I missed it, but I've only found one single instance of a Sikh being killed in an admitted case of "mistaken identity" shortly following 9/11/2001, that being Balbir Singh Sodhi. Since you implied widespread killings, I was wondering if you might be able to either cite your sources of many Sikhs being murdered due to misidentification, or correct the overstatement. Your BBC source only lists Mr. Sodhi.
His references to most of his post comes from historical data that may or may not have been correctly transposed from different languages from authors who had not only agendas but also wrote, and were allowed to write, only at the pleasure of whomever was in charge of their quill at the time. At the risk of restarting the seven plagues, he seems to refer to the teachings of Jesus as if they were accurately captured on the spot when those events happened rather than being recorded many years after his assention by people who were either not alive to witness them or from a source that was selectively put together and edited so many times that the original meaning was probably lost in the shuffle. Many people have died in the name of religion from those that would maintain not the faith but the power over those who chose not to be manipulated or who called their devine being by another name.
Astraeus
05-24-2008, 13:24
His references to most of his post comes from historical data that may or may not have been correctly transposed from different languages from authors who had not only agendas but also wrote, and were allowed to write, only at the pleasure of whomever was in charge of their quill at the time. At the risk of restarting the seven plagues, he seems to refer to the teachings of Jesus as if they were accurately captured on the spot when those events happened rather than being recorded many years after his assention by people who were either not alive to witness them or from a source that was selectively put together and edited so many times that the original meaning was probably lost in the shuffle. Many people have died in the name of religion from those that would maintain not the faith but the power over those who chose not to be manipulated or who called their devine being by another name.
Sir,
First, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions. That said, my point was simply that the brutalities of the Crusades, and each of the Church's inquisitions are very well documented (in fact through the church's own historical records), and there is plenty of evidence that points to a very different story then the "Christianity has always been the champion of civility and tolerance" narrative.
Two Soldier Dad,
I really do basically agree with your point, which is that our Western concept of having differences being okay, or even desirable is an idea that is not widespread in the world, and the ability to empathize with "the other" is a particularly foreign concept to the Middle East. I just take exception to the equation of Christianity with civility. That idea has been utilized to do some very uncivil things in the past (remember the "White man's burden?"). And, Christiandom has some pretty nasty history of its own as do most religions. I would argue that our concepts of diversity, plurality, and tolerance, are more in spite of religion than because of it, but that's a discussion that is very debatable and should probably be done another day.
Razor, I apologize and stand corrected. It was a sloppy mistake I made while posting in a rush. A Sikh rights web site I was on yesterday claimed incorrectly that there had been "several killings" of sikhs in the wake of September 11. I shouldn't have made the statement without corroborating the claim. This morning I used lexis-nexis thoroughly to check it, and it's not true.
However, it is true that there have been several assaults and attempted killings of Sikhs subsequent to 9/11 in crimes apparently motivated by racist profiling, "mistaken identity" or not:
Here are a few cases:
In 2003 Avtar Singh Cheira, a 52-year-old truck driver who lives in Phoenix, was shot twice by men who yelled "Go back to where you belong to."
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special14/articles/0707coldcase0707.html
On September 13, 2001, a Sikh cabdriver in SeaTac Washington, Sukhvir Singh was attacked by one of his passengers.
"Saturday, police say, the Orange Cab driver withstood a violent attack from a drunken passenger who punched him, bit off a piece of his scalp, called Singh an "Iraqi terrorist" and threatened to kill him. The attack ended after a Metro bus pulled up to the cab and a passenger called 911."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004039447_cabdriver28m.html
On September 30, 2001, a Sikh woman in San Diego was attacked while she was stopped at a traffic light in San Diego:
"men ripped open her car door, slashed her in the head with a knife and shouted: "This is what you get for what you've done to us!"
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/171353761.html?dids=
171353761:171353761&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+11%2C
+2002&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=S.14&desc=9%2F11
%3A+A+Year+After+%2F+WHO+WE+ARE+NOW%3B+Swaran+Kaur +Bhullar%3B+%27Somebody
+could+have+just+taken+my+life....+It%27s+somethin g+nobody+deserves.%27
My point is that while Western empathy of the other guy is much more widespread here than in other parts of the world, there are still plenty of close-minded xenophobes here in the United States, who will act violently on their ignorant impulses.
"The Civil Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and United States Attorneys offices have investigated over 800 incidents since 9/11 involving violence, threats, vandalism and arson against Arab-Americans, Muslims, Sikhs, South-Asian Americans and other individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern origin."
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/discrimupdate.htm
I always take HRW with a grain of salt, but the cases they cite here are legit:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/usahate/usa1102-04.htm
3SoldierDad
05-24-2008, 15:09
My point is that while Western empathy of the other guy is much more widespread here than in other parts of the world
That's my point...Yes.
This is where we would disagree - I believe that the enlightenment could happen ONLY because of the reformation and the provision of the Judeo-Christian deference to truth and to respect another man's conscience - this was a direct contribution over the ages from Jesus and men such as Hillel; impacting the West in such a way that folks could look at the evidences and what was real then decide - the idea had already been suggested by Plato, but didn't become activated across the culture until late in the 17th century when folks began going back to their sources of faith rather than following church politicains.
So, you do understand that I'm not an apologist for organized Christianity...or Judaism for that matter. Their histories are not inspired - For me, their sources are. If you don't believe that - fine. Perhaps, however, we could agree that loving your neighbor is a good idea and even compelling for socio-political reasons...like democracy, freedom, encouragement to work hard, to buy and sell with rules (respect contracts), take care of your family, to not lie, not steal, or not harm...etc.
I would submit, from my vantage point, what we see with "reason" without a Judeo-Christian tradition is that you get the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks. What you get with the tempering of Western faith is something that looks like the American Revolution. It's called tolerance and empathy - the ability to listen to others; realizing you can learn something - "enlightened" enough, humble enough to know you don't have all the answers.
We would agree and disagree. However, in the tradition of the West - We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
There are still plenty of close-minded xenophobes here in the United States, who will act violently on their ignorant impulses.
We can agree on this. Too bad you thought I was suggesting some kind of American super-purity. That's unfortunate. I don't write as well as I can speak with folks face-to-face. As we'd get to know each other, perhaps, we can give each other the benefit of the doubt. Yes? That is also a Western tradition - yet, too seldom practiced in these extreme days of ours.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Astraeus
05-24-2008, 16:30
That's my point...Yes.
I would submit, from my vantage point, what we see with "reason" without a Judeo-Christian tradition is that you get the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks. What you get with the tempering of Western faith is something that looks like the American Revolution. It's called tolerance and empathy - the ability to listen to others; realizing you can learn something - "enlightened" enough, humble enough to know you don't have all the answers.
We would agree and disagree. However, in the tradition of the West - We can agree to disagree and still be friends.
We can agree on this. Too bad you thought I was suggesting some kind of American super-purity. That's unfortunate. I don't write as well as I can speak with folks face-to-face. As we'd get to know each other, perhaps, we can give each other the benefit of the doubt. Yes? That is also a Western tradition - yet, too seldom practiced in these extreme days of ours.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Nah, sir I see where you're coming from. I think perhaps a factor to consider in the differences between the American and French revolutions is that the first was a colony rebelling from an outside power, and the second was a conflict within a single country deposing the government.
Take care
bailaviborita
05-24-2008, 21:24
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that because of the Catholic Church's persecution of others during the Middle Ages that you cannot critisize today's fundamentalists nor point out the advantages of the Christian faith that seem obvious today. While I am by no means a bible-beater, I am able to see that the church that Peter founded on Jesus' teachings did not advocate what the Crusades or Inquisition represented. Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons. To label the entire faith and its teachings as "the same as Islam's" is missing some fundamental points- especially if you believe that History advances (and thus things that have survived and are prosperous today are by definition more valuable to us in general than things in the past- and therefore likewise incomparable outside of the same time period).
The bottom line is that Christianity differs from Islam in that Christianity advocated a separation of church and state (render unto Caesar...) and was founded as a religion of those not in power focused on the Afterlife. Islam- by contrast- has no such provision for a separation of church and state- they are one and the same- and Mohammed was a spiritual leader, a revolutionary, and a military and political leader- and Islam reflects that multi-natured flavor of its beginning. Islam tells everyone how to live every aspect of their life- Christianity does not. Regardless of how leaders in the past or present translate Jesus' teachings- the doctrinal basis of Christianity does not advocate what Islam advocates.
Thus, the hope for an Islamic "reformation" is a false one because the reformation idea has no doctrinal basis- and therefore should not be relied upon by the West. Christianity reformed based on the principles of Jesus' teachings- not on some new ideas about life mixed in with the doctrine. Martin Luther used Jesus' teachings to try to get the Catholic Church to revert back to the "true" faith. To have the same in Islam would require a different doctrine- one very different than Mohammed's. In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs.
Our discounting of religion in our own culture causes us to miss the nuances and importance of religion in other cultures, and invites the apologists in our secular culture to stymie debate. From my own reading, Osama's own words, and from what I've gathered talking to Moslems in the Middle East-- I would conclude it IS about religion, their religion IS different than Christianity, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem- in terms of what we define as "moderate", and the doctrine of the Moslem faith does lead to the violence we see today- just as the doctrine of the Christian faith does lead to the moderation we see today.
Astraeus
05-25-2008, 02:36
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that because of the Catholic Church's persecution of others during the Middle Ages that you cannot critisize today's fundamentalists nor point out the advantages of the Christian faith that seem obvious today. While I am by no means a bible-beater, I am able to see that the church that Peter founded on Jesus' teachings did not advocate what the Crusades or Inquisition represented. Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons. To label the entire faith and its teachings as "the same as Islam's" is missing some fundamental points- especially if you believe that History advances (and thus things that have survived and are prosperous today are by definition more valuable to us in general than things in the past- and therefore likewise incomparable outside of the same time period).
The bottom line is that Christianity differs from Islam in that Christianity advocated a separation of church and state (render unto Caesar...) and was founded as a religion of those not in power focused on the Afterlife. Islam- by contrast- has no such provision for a separation of church and state- they are one and the same- and Mohammed was a spiritual leader, a revolutionary, and a military and political leader- and Islam reflects that multi-natured flavor of its beginning. Islam tells everyone how to live every aspect of their life- Christianity does not. Regardless of how leaders in the past or present translate Jesus' teachings- the doctrinal basis of Christianity does not advocate what Islam advocates.
Thus, the hope for an Islamic "reformation" is a false one because the reformation idea has no doctrinal basis- and therefore should not be relied upon by the West. Christianity reformed based on the principles of Jesus' teachings- not on some new ideas about life mixed in with the doctrine. Martin Luther used Jesus' teachings to try to get the Catholic Church to revert back to the "true" faith. To have the same in Islam would require a different doctrine- one very different than Mohammed's. In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs.
Our discounting of religion in our own culture causes us to miss the nuances and importance of religion in other cultures, and invites the apologists in our secular culture to stymie debate. From my own reading, Osama's own words, and from what I've gathered talking to Moslems in the Middle East-- I would conclude it IS about religion, their religion IS different than Christianity, there is no such thing as a "moderate" Moslem- in terms of what we define as "moderate", and the doctrine of the Moslem faith does lead to the violence we see today- just as the doctrine of the Christian faith does lead to the moderation we see today.
Alright, do you want to get into the "tolerant" history of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism? It wasn't as autocratic, but it's still pretty nasty. Internment of Native American children in missions for religious re-education is one example. As you say "Any power can take a doctrine and warp it for political or other reasons." Throughout the history of Christianity people have. Religion is not something that exists in some abstract reality, it's what people practice and do.
I would consider a moderate Muslim someone who does not advocate the murder of non-Muslims and so called Kafir Muslims throughout the world. Someone who allows for the possibility of non-Muslims to co-exist peacefully inside of the Islamic societies of Middle Eastern countries. As I stated earlier, I've come across a large number of extremely intolerant people in Middle Eastern societies. But ignorant attitudes towards outsiders abound in certain parts of America as well, as I found out while roadtripping in rural Virginia as a Californian traveling with a Jew and an Englishman from London. I've met plenty of Middle Eastern Muslims as well, much less educated than the average American that when I said that I was Christian, would simply say "Ala-Kiteb Al-hamdulele (It's all one book, it's all good dude), and who differentiated between the policies of my country and our government, and the people of the United States, saying that they like Americans, just not our policies in the Middle East. Even a Syrian cabbie with less then a high school education told me that he wanted me to know that he saw the difference between our government and American people, and that he has no problem with the American society, he just wishes the U.S. government would change it's ways in the Middle East. Some people with a similar educational background in the U.S. might not have so nuanced a view.
Still, what you say is very true, there will never be an Islamic reformation, the concept of Tauheed (basically everything is rendered unto God) makes it a nogo from the beginning. Still, I feel that a large amount of what is really Arab or Middle Eastern tribal culture is characterized as stemming from Islam. Honors killings for example (killing a female family member who is suspected of engaging in inappropriate contact with a non-blood relative) is widely perceived as a uniquely Islamic phenomena. Honor killings in Jordan are actually equally common among the Jordanian Christian population, and (according to a human rights advocate who works there who I talked with once), the quantity would be disproportionate to the size of of the Christian population (6 percent).
"In fact, you could argue that Osama and others are doing exactly what Martin Luther did- trying to get their religion back to its fundamental doctrinal beliefs."
The ideas of Sayid Qutib, Wahabism, Osama Bin Laden, and other extremist forms of Islam are relatively new phenomenon since the 18th century, and don't constitute a "return" to the basis of the religion any more than Amish wearing "traditional" clothes constitutes a return to the fundamentals of Christianity. There will always be calls within certain factions of all religions to return back to "what was before," the good old days so to speak, and in this process of supposedly reverting back to the original a new doctrine is created. Bin Laden considers most modern-day Muslims to be Kafir, so how is it that this is a fundamental belief system in Islam?
bailaviborita
05-25-2008, 12:39
Alright, do you want to get into the "tolerant" history of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism?
No, I don't want to get into that- I already stated it was a moot point. Comparing religions across time periods is inconsistent and takes things out of context. In addition, taking examples of outliers to prove generalizations isn't logical either. I tried to make the point that the doctrines are different and that what we have today in the U.S. has emerged because of, not in spite of, the Christian doctrine. Regardless of past corruptions or misinterpretations today, the overall progress of Christian-based countries has tended towards more tolerance- not less, more internal peace- not less, more secularism- not less, and more science-based progress- not less. These tenets are at the heart of Christianity- and importantly NOT at the heart of Islam. Islam is a religion that was founded by a revolutionary, military leader, and political leader- and it reflects those connections in its doctrine. Christianity, was founded targeting those out of power and focused on the Afterlife- not in setting up the perfect Christian country. That is what is important today and in the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong- but your initial response on this thread was taking issue with the characterization of Christianity being tolerant and Islam being intolerant. You then stated that the actions of the believers in the past proves your point. I take issue to the comparisons and the idea that doctrine is not that important. I think the doctrine is ultimately what drives the long-term progress (or lack thereof) for the adherents. Therefore, since the doctrines of Christianity are what they are, Western countries have progressed more; and vice-versa for Moslem countries- and we can expect more of this trend in the future.
I would consider a moderate Muslim someone who does not advocate the murder of non-Muslims and so called Kafir Muslims throughout the world. Someone who allows for the possibility of non-Muslims to co-exist peacefully inside of the Islamic societies of Middle Eastern countries.
I don't agree- we are so used to a majority of our people being in the middle on most issues that I don't think it is an apt comparison when using the Middle East. Islam is structured very differently, therefore not allowing a moderation. We confuse the issue by calling those who advocate killing as extremists- but there is no separation of views in Islam- and it would make no sense to an Islamic religious scholar.
still, I feel that a large amount of what is really Arab or Middle Eastern tribal culture is characterized as stemming from Islam.
I would think it is exactly the opposite- that Bedouin culture was infused into Islamic beginnings. Either way, the effect is the same- the doctrine was great in keeping them alive in the desert- it is not so great in an urban, scientific-based, egalitarian, contemporary culture.
The ideas of Sayid Qutib, Wahabism, Osama Bin Laden, and other extremist forms of Islam are relatively new phenomenon since the 18th century, and don't constitute a "return" to the basis of the religion any more than Amish wearing "traditional" clothes constitutes a return to the fundamentals of Christianity. There will always be calls within certain factions of all religions to return back to "what was before," the good old days so to speak, and in this process of supposedly reverting back to the original a new doctrine is created. Bin Laden considers most modern-day Muslims to be Kafir, so how is it that this is a fundamental belief system in Islam?
There are plenty of books spelling out what religious scholars call for- to include Osama- I can give you some titles if you need them; but I'm not going to list the points they make here. Their main statements, however, reflect concepts from Islamic doctrine. Martin Luther could never have doctrinally pushed for kiling the pope and taking over and ruling Rome- it simply is not in Jesus' teachings. Osama, however- can push for those concepts by using the Islamic texts- because they are in there.
Guys,
I grew up in the country and most of the people around our area were 'mildly' religious at best. My Dad never trusted anybody that was too zealous about anything, including patriotism, politics, and religious beliefs. There was one woman down the road who my Dad said had enough religion in her to form her own country...but he pitied anybody who would choose to live there if they didn't agree with her personal religious points-of-view. I didn't quite understand his point back then but learned to appreciate his wisdom over time and with the worldly experience I gained in SF. My Mom was pretty religious and we used to have to spend time at a Missionary Baptist Church to ease her conscience, and those ffolkes were some dunking fools who would just as soon hold a baptism as pass a collection basket. But when my youngest brother died at 21, Mom gave up on religion as she couldn't understand how God could have done that to her and the family. My Dad always told us that we didn't need an interpreter to speak with God; He'd understand what we were trying to say and He wouldn't charge you for the experience. Dad considered organized religion to be more business than religious beliefs, and thought it to be mostly 'monkey business' at that...which is why I came to appreciate the likes of the veteran chaplains we had in SF like Bert Pitchford and Marion Mills. I attend--sporadically--a UMC here in Dallas because the minister is very down to earth in his approach and does not pressure anyone into joining the church, just welcomes you when you're there. I appreciate that approach and the way they run their confirmation program for young people, taking them to worship at a synogogue, other protestant congregations, and a mosque. His opinion is that knowledge is power and it is the individual who must choose to accept God or not. I know this kind of rambles, but that's pretty much the way I feel about it, too. I may be seeing y'all in hell...or not. TBD. If not, I hope to see y'all at that BIG A CAMP IN THE SKY I dream about. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
3SoldierDad
05-25-2008, 16:30
Religion sucks...
If it wasn't for Jesus, I wouldn't really want to be a Christian.
My $.02
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Religion sucks...
Some words on that very subject from Samuel Langhorn Clemens:
In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
- Following the Equator
So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
My land, the power of training! Of influence! Of education! It can bring a body up to believe anything.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
We are all missionaries (propagandists of our views.) Each of us disapproves of the other missionaries.
- Notebook, 1905
Richard :munchin
3SoldierDad
05-25-2008, 17:18
So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
We are all missionaries (propagandists of our views.) Each of us disapproves of the other missionaries.
- Notebook, 1905
Richard, very nice, indeed. I like these two, especially.
It is a lesson to consider that the greatest praise for any man in the bible is the high praise accorded to a simple Roman Soldier.
The Great I AM was "Amazed" at him.
Three Soldier Dad...Chuck
Ahhh, but Christianity is so simple that allot of people will still never make it to heaven because they believe man knows more than Jesus.
Team Sergeant
05-25-2008, 17:36
Ahhh, but Christianity is so simple that allot of people will still never make it to heaven.
Like me.;)
I'm beginning to grow tired of the religious (tribal) chat. If it is your desire to post regarding your tribal beliefs please do so elsewhere. I'm sure they're thousands of like minded individuals that would enjoy nothing more than to share their tribal beliefs with you all day on their bulletin boards.
Team Sergeant