So you think McCain is Pro troops, Think Again!

[macmov]

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?

 

[greg334]

But who is? Obama? Hillary? They don't seem to be on target either.

 

[ratwell71]

Macmov,

Great research. Thanks for passing it along.

 

[arkjarhead]

Here's something to think about. When alot of these things get voted on they aren't voting on just the main issue of the bill. Other senators will tack pork on to a bill that they know no one will approve just to keep things from passing. Like when one Senator was wanting veterans to be able to use our G.I. Bill money to send our wives to college. Alot of senators were behind it. I mean it is our money. If the vet isn't going to go to school why can't his wife? He paid into the program, and it will still benefit him. Well a couple of senators didn't like the idea so they decided to tack on billions of dollars of pork for things like a new nature preserve in Puerto Rico. Who cares about that? Well it got voted down due to the pork. All of that stuff that goes on in Washington can be twisted every which way. You say he didn't vote for such and such. Well if he had he might have been approving millions be spent to protect a lizard in Alabama. Then people wouldn't be saying he voted for a troop rest period they would be complaining that he voted to spend millions on a lizard. It's all a game. They're damed if they do damed if they don't.

 

[macmov]

Seems both Obama and Clinton have a better plan then (Let's stay the course)This has done nothing but buried 4000 of our solders and how many Iraqi's along with how many Blackwater private army personal that aren't even counted.

Clinton
# Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran. (Dec 2007)
# Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon. (Dec 2007)
# Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb. (Oct 2007)
# Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice. (Oct 2007)
# No funding that does not move us toward withdrawal. (Sep 2007)
# Protect troops with body armor then & bringing them home now. (Sep 2007)
# Patraeus report requires willing suspension of disbelief. (Sep 2007)
# Iran's Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism. (Sep 2007)
# Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first. (Sep 2007)
# Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
# After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel "wrath" of US. (Jun 2007)
# 1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam. (Jun 2007)
# 2006 election: voters desperately want a new course. (Jun 2007)
# Phased redeployment, not irresponsible immediate withdrawal. (Jun 2007)
# At Wellesley in '68, steered anti-war movement within system. (Jun 2007)
# I have seen firsthand terrorists' terrible damage. (Jun 2007)
# Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)
# Supports border security fence in Israel. (Oct 2006)
# Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
# Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
# Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace. (May 2000)
# Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese. (Nov 1999)
# Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power. (Aug 2007)
Iraq War
# Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. (Oct 2007)
# Bring out as many combat troops as quickly as possible. (Oct 2007)
# Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
# Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
# Defunding war is the only way to force Bush to change course. (Sep 2007)
# Push Pentagon to start planning for Iraq withdrawal. (Aug 2007)
# Redeploy responsibly, with regional diplomatic effort. (Aug 2007)
# Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
# FactCheck: Correct that DoD has no plan to remove all troops. (Jul 2007)
# Deauthorize Iraq war, and don't grant new war authority. (Jun 2007)
# Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
# The Iraq war is Bush's war. (Jun 2007)
# Iraq war wouldn't have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
# It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
# This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
# Begin re-deployment out of Iraq in 90 days. (Apr 2007)
# America elected this Congress to bring our troops home. (Apr 2007)
# No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
# Online petition to pressure Bush & GOP for redeployment. (Apr 2007)
# If Bush doesn't end Iraq war, when I'm president, I will. (Mar 2007)
# Require Bush to redeploy or seek additional authority. (Feb 2007)
# Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
# Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war. (Feb 2007)
# Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops. (Jan 2007)
# Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately. (Oct 2006)
# Agrees with Newt Gingrich that Iraq policy is a mess. (Dec 2003)
# Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
# Critic of Iraq war, but won't recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
# Regrets Bush's handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
# Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
# Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
# Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
# Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
# Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
# Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)

Obama
# Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
# Surge has not succeeded because it ignores political issues. (Sep 2007)
# Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)
# No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)
# Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)
# Troops not dying in vain; but we need plans for success. (Jul 2007)
# We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)
# Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)
# War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)
# Increase ground forces in Iraq to decrease troop rotations. (Apr 2007)
# Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)
# Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008. (Apr 2007)
# Open dialogue with both Syria and Iran. (Apr 2007)
# Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region. (Mar 2007)
# Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)
# Longtime critic of Iraq war. (Nov 2006)
# Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)
# Initial military was extraordinarily successful in Iraq. (Oct 2004)
# Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)
# We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there. (Oct 2004)
# Advance the training speed and get the reconstruction moving. (Oct 2004)
# Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)
# Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)
# Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)
# Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)
# Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
# International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)
#
Mideast/Asia/Afghanistan
# Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)
# Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)
# Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)
# Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)
# Get al Qaeda hiding in hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan. (Aug 2007)
# Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)
# FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)
# Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)
# Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)
# Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)
# Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)
# We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)
# Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)
# Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)
# Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)
# Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)

Obama Vote
# Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
# Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
# Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)
# Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
# Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
# Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Ark...absolutely....one has to look at the whole bill as presented for the vote and see what exactly they were voting on...like you said one good thing in a bill and 10 pork items makes for a bad bill....a bill should pass on it's own merit....pork should be outlawed!

 

[dcalien]

pork should be outlawed!

I think that is the Muslim position.

 

[greg334]

OMG what is this?

After all of that, I came to this conclusion;


Hillary is a liar and her background is flawed.

Obama has done less than nothing. In the great world of politics voting on bills means nothing, sponsoring legislation and getting things passed does. If you create or sponsor legislation and vote on it but it doesn’t pass, then you did something.

Further more, not to be insulting, but you need to learn how our diplomacy system works. I read all these talking points and think, God help us because they are just that talking points with no action behind them. One thing that people are missing is that we already are involved with a lot of things that are complicated and somewhat twisted. I look at that list for Obama and read “Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace”, which shows me that is has no clue in what he is talking about. I know what he meant and it is the same thing as Clinton’s ‘we will seek out and find the terrorist and then charge them with a crime’ reasoning. This is a failure on his part not to understand the nature of the Middle East.

Just like the idea that the present congress was elected to get us out of Iraq, there is some what of an indication when one puts together these three things;

“Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran”

“Invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda

“Problems with current Israeli policy”

All three of these sends a clear message that he is clueless to what the ramifications each idea has.

“Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran” Iran wants to waste more time by distracting us and the world from what they really are doing.

“Invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda” You don’t say to an ally that we are going to invade you to find our enemy. This undermines our efforts to find the terrorist and also undermines our troops.

“Problems with current Israeli policy” this is another BS statement, why isn’t he worried about our border policies, where is he on focusing on pushing the ‘fence’ that we need?

I am starting to feel sorry for people who say they are going to vote democrat because they hate Bush. I don’t like bush and the republicans are getting bad but the dems are losing it.

Talking points don't consitute a plan, they have NO PLAN. Where is a detailed plan on how to get us out? They can’t even do their job in the senate, let alone come up with a plan.
OH and one other thing, let’s say Obama gets in to the white house, you know that he will be briefed in December on all the top secret stuff? Now do you think that he will follow his plan when he finds out the real secrets? I don’t think he will at all.

 

[dhalltoyo]

As a veteran, I did not take an Oath of Allegiance that indicated my Commander-in-Chief would do what I wanted. What I want, or do not want, has no bearing on the miltary operating at peak performance.

If that were the case, I would have asked the Commander-in-Chief to hire mercenaries so I could stay at home and draw a paycheck. Duh!

And, as Christian who is bound by the doctrine of my faith, as spelled out in the Scriptures, I am to be in subjection to the authorities that are appointed over me; rather they be military or civilian.

If I don't agree with my boss, I quit and move on, but I am not to openly rebuke him. If I don't agree with military policies, I do my service and discharge, but I am not to usurp the authority placed over me; an authority I agreed in writing in which to be in allegiance.

In fact, in 1 Samuel 15:22 the Bible says, "...better to obey than sacrifice..."

Obviously, Mr. Obama is somewhat confused as to "What saith the scripture." It just comes from sitting under a tyrant for twenty years and listening to Marxist rhetoric. Needless to say, Jeremiah Wright couldn't cure a ham, let alone the problems facing this country. To stand in the House of God and blaspheme His Holy name is a wicked abomination! How could a man even consider himself a pastor by doing such a wicked act? How could anyone claim the name Christian and sit under such wickedness for 20 years?

At least Senator McCain didn't have Jeremiah Wright puking in his ear for 20 years.

 

[ratwell71]

One person cannot please the masses. Thus one must resort to lies. This is just a fact of life. Politics equals lies.

There are too many differences of opinions in the WORLD for one man/woman to appease everyone.

We cannot expect a human being to be perfect in an imperfect world.

You must take into account who is in Congress. I think the many versus just one person needs to be looked at with more scrutiny, however, that is a little harder to do. HMMMM...

 

[Turtle]

Ark nailed it, as most bills have all kinds of bizarre things tacked on to them, either to sneak them into law, or put in there specifically to prevent the bill from passing. The Rest Period between deployments in particular was a silly bill. It was a backdoor method of drawing down the troops. Anyone who professes to be "pro troops" should understand more than anyone that the safety of the troops is paramount, and that there is safety in numbers. Draw down the troops and the ones left behind are easy targets. When we built up the level of troops again, the casualty rate dropped, rather dramatically. The Democrats chose to ignore that little tid bit.

Be that as it may, as Ark pointed out, the Deployment Dwell Time amendment was an amendment to a substitute amendment that also had (among several others) the DREAM ACT attached to it, attached by Luger, Hatch, Hagel, and Durbin (fellow IL senator of Obama's), that was an end-run around the immigration laws to allows illegal aliens to remain as permanent residents provided they sneaked into the country when they were children, because, of course, it's all about the children. And we can't separate parents from their children, because, of course, it's all about the children. So parents that are set to be deported, if they have children, because, of course, it's all about the children, they won't get deported. Instead, provided they have obeyed the laws and all that jazz, will be granted long term, if not permanent residency status, because, of course, it's all about the children. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it.

If you don't like McCain, just say so, without resorting to cutting and pasting the some rather sloppily performed and highly partisan research of others. Think for yourself instead of letting others think for you. If you look carefully at the Clinton and Obama records you posted in support of "stay the course" you will see that their records are anything but stay the course. Like the meaningless CNN poll results quoted above, Clinton and Obama stick a wet finger into the air to figure out which was they need to vote, without considering whether or not that wind will bring bad weather later in the day. They want to draw down troops, because that sounds good, never mind that by doing so will leave the ones behind more vulnerable. And apparently they never learned how you can't fight a war from the comfortable offices of Congress, like they also failed to do Viet Nam. Troop levels is a Commander-In-Chief and military brass issue, not a Congressional issue. Congress can set the goals for the military, but they have no business making tactical, or even strategic, decisions from Washington.
When the Congress makes decisions about the military, they are almost always politically motivated, instead of motivated by the goals they themselves have set forth, and they rarely have the interests of the troops in mind. They say they do, but all ya gotta do is look at what they propose. More often than not, it's the solder who gets the short end of the stick.


All politicians are the same. Two sides of the same coin. None are as bad as you think, and none are as good as you think. They are all, equally, pretty bad, 'cause that what politicians do. The ones that look for quick fixes tend to be worse than the ones that look for more long term solutions. With the checks and balances of our government, there is only just so much damage a single president can do. All you have to do is look for the one who tends to choose longer term solutions, instead of the one who goes for quick and dirty fixes that look good on the surface, but tends to present more problems in the long term.

Incidentally, a CNN poll had the people 33% For and 67% Against the mandatory dwell time amendment. You know, the one McCain voted against. Go figure.

 

[ratwell71]

David,

Are you putting man's law over God's law? What about God's commandment? Thou shalt not kill. It does not say anywhere in the Bible that there is a condition applied to that commandment. It does not say thou shall kill if the government feels it necessary. I am sure that Jesus said, "Love thy enemy".

Peace is not given to us through war. You get what you give in this world. Period. If you kill by the sword you will die by the sword. I do not know about you but I fear my God.

I built my church not with brick and mortar but through a gathering of people that believe and have faith in God. His church is not a building but the gathering of people who believe and follow his commandments.

How did God even get brought into politics? This is a whole different subject. My opinion is this: Religion is the devil's work and a way for man to profit off of God's word. A true church doesn't need a building but a foundation of people.

Peace begets peace. War begets war. It is a never ending cycle until we get it.

 

[Turtle]

David,

Are you putting man's law over God's law? What about God's commandment? Thou shalt not kill.

David can speak to this much more better than me can (sometimes I crack myself up), and I do not presume to speak for him at all, but I couldn't let this one go by.

"Thou shalt not kill" is the King James translation of the original Commandment, used largely by the Catholic church. The original wording has a meaning much more akin to the more specific "murder" than is the more general "kill". Most often the Commandment is listed quite specifically as "Thou shalt not murder."

It does not say anywhere in the Bible that there is a condition applied to that commandment.

Old Testament (Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, Joshua 20) where situations allowed for a "blood avenger." If your kin were slain by another person, the next of kin had the right to take the slayers’ life. If it was an accidental killing the slayer could flee to a city of refuge and be safe from the avenger. If it was a premeditated killing, there was no refuge for the murderer. This is pretty much a form of capital punishment although it also had elements of revenge.

It does not say thou shall kill if the government feels it necessary.

Actually, yeah, it does. Romans 13 makes it pretty plain that the government can take a life under justifiable conditions, but cannot under other conditions, as they have the power of the sword. But, Romans 13 also says that the government's power is ordained from God, and if you resist the power of the ordained government, you're resisting the ordinance of God, soooo ya gotta be careful there.

I am sure that Jesus said, "Love thy enemy".

Are ya really sure? OK, assuming that the "quotes" in the Bible are actual quotes, then yeah, he said that, but I don't really think he meant to love your enemy while they are impaling you with their sword. Jesus was a big proponent of self-defense. He told his disciples to go out and buy swords for self-defense against their enemies (see below). Self-defense is hardly the same as living by the sword, and not living by the sword is, in fact, loving your enemy. In other words, if not killing your enemy is your first and preferred option, that's the same as loving them. If not killing your enemy is the only option you'll consider, even as they are ramming their sword through your chest as you are professing your love for them, well, then you're a fool. (Proverbs 14:8)

Peace is not given to us through war. You get what you give in this world. Period. If you kill by the sword you will die by the sword. I do not know about you but I fear my God.

As well you should. On the day of Jesus' arrest, he said unto his disciples, "If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

I built my church not with brick and mortar but through a gathering of people that believe and have faith in God. His church is not a building but the gathering of people who believe and follow his commandments.

Textbook description of a cult.

How did God even get brought into politics? This is a whole different subject.

Surely you jest. God invented politics. The Tree of Knowledge, the Apple, the whole garden of Eden, pure politics, every bit of it. Besides, again Romans 13 makes the ordinance of God and the government one in the same (just ask a Muslim, they'll tell ya).

My opinion is this: Religion is the devil's work and a way for man to profit off of God's word. A true church doesn't need a building but a foundation of people.

I'm with ya on that one. Religion is big business, and is, arguably, the root of most of the world's ills.

Peace begets peace. War begets war. It is a never ending cycle until we get it.

If that were true we would always be either at peace or at war. Always. History has proven time and time again that peace begets war and war begets peace. Even the Bible says so, right there in Ecclesiastes 3:

To every thing there is a season...A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Pete Seeger put it all to music, The Byrds, "Turn, Turn, Turn"
YouTube - Byrds - "Turn Turn Turn"

 

[macmov]

David,

Are you putting man's law over God's law? What about God's commandment? Thou shalt not kill. It does not say anywhere in the Bible that there is a condition applied to that commandment. It does not say thou shall kill if the government feels it necessary. I am sure that Jesus said, "Love thy enemy".

Peace is not given to us through war. You get what you give in this world. Period. If you kill by the sword you will die by the sword. I do not know about you but I fear my God.

I built my church not with brick and mortar but through a gathering of people that believe and have faith in God. His church is not a building but the gathering of people who believe and follow his commandments.

How did God even get brought into politics? This is a whole different subject. My opinion is this: Religion is the devil's work and a way for man to profit off of God's word. A true church doesn't need a building but a foundation of people.

Peace begets peace. War begets war. It is a never ending cycle until we get it.

I agree with you whole heartedly except for one thing. I don not believe God has ever portrayed himself to be feared.

With that said: I will pray for the immediate previous post by Turtle.
Mr. Turtle, in my opinion of course. Without going into a long dissertation of the man-made view points of religion versus God's creation of Spirituality, You have an extremely warped interpritation of the Bible.

 

[greg334]

"Thou shalt not kill" is the King James translation of the original Commandment, used largely by the Catholic church. The original wording has a meaning much more akin to the more specific "murder" than is the more general "kill". Most often the Commandment is listed quite specifically as "Thou shalt not murder."

I think that there a bit more to it than this.

If you look at the original text in the original language Hebrew, then it reads thou shall not murder but the problem is some of the translations come from the Latin version of the ten commandments, hence the Catholic version says thou shall not kill.

I don't think the catholic church uses the King James version, by the way.

The problem is that regardless how things look, until we understand war is just to protect the innocent and the country, we will always have things like this.

 

[Turtle]

Mr. Turtle, in my opinion of course. Without going into a long dissertation of the man-made view points of religion versus God's creation of Spirituality, You have an extremely warped interpritation of the Bible.

I can change my interpretation if you like. You just let me know the correct way, and I'll reinterpret it to suit you. Because, of course, unless I think like you do, I'm wrong.

That's the beauty of the Bible - anyone can interpret it in any way they see fit to achieve whatever goals they wish.

Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

 

[greg334]

You know turtle, I don't mean to belittle people which I do without knowing it but here is one thing that really gets me; many tend to forget that Christianity is a form of.... Judaism.

Am I wrong?

 

[ratwell71]

Turtle,

Actually you are quoting from the Old Testament. Each author of a book, not the Bible, lends itself to a different perspective, however, God's word to us is based on our convictions not perspective. Right versus wrong is very definitive, however, we can choose to go against what we feel is right to do the wrong thing when it serves us at the moment.

Actually the cult thing is funny because I belong to no religion or cult. God is everywhere in the world not just in the USA.

I pray in my truck. How is that for a cult?

I appreciate the different views, but I think I will trust in the word of God over man any day. The problem with not fearing God is what has made His laws to man ignored.

No disrespect to anyone.

 

[ratwell71]

God did not invent politics. Next you will say he invented the highways, plastics, businesses, religions, etc.

He gave man his own will. This "will" is what brought about all the evils in the world.

Let us not be SHEEP.

 

[ratwell71]

The Evil of Religion
By Ajit Dongre 12/11/2001

Religion is evil. It leads to violence and hatred among people.

A religion is not history; it is the embodiment of the metaphysical and spiritual thoughts of a society at the seminal point in the course of that religion. In this socio-anthropological perspective, Man created religion out of the twin needs for (a) a code for moral or ethical thought and behavior and (b) spiritual tranquility and salvation. The major religions of the world evolved out of these needs felt by various societies over the millennia. The creation of each religion was, of course, not a conscious act, and each was influenced by the particular socio-cultural milieu out of which it arose.

Our tribal ancestors had to struggle to survive in the face of limited resources. Separated from other tribes by distance and culture, they often took recourse in violence against members of other tribes in order to protect their own kind. As human societies grew in size, the notion of "we" (vs. "they") had to be constantly expanded. Different religions codified this tension between "we" and "they" in words specific to that society at that juncture in time. In addition to the various edicts prescribing or proscribing violence in the name of goodness, other culture-specific trappings also found themselves in each religion in the form of additional verbiage.

We humans are creatures of our evolution. Behavior helping, and benignant to, our kin and fellow tribesmen was conducive to our survival as a species and so has become etched in our genes. Our religions reflect these attributes of ourselves - morality, compassion, love, etc. - which can be generically called humanitarianism. Unfortunately, most religions have a lot of other baggage in them beside a codification of these human values. Some of this baggage may have occasionally been marginally useful when that religion served a small society isolated from others, but in these modern times, of a single worldwide society, the non-humanitarian aspects of the world religions are inimical to that global society. In this sense, religions are like cancers attached to the healthy tissue of humanitarianism.

Many people think of their religion as being full of peace and brotherly love but imbue other religions with some kind of fault. More than xenophobia is at play here: it is easy for an outsider to spot the arbitrariness, internal inconsistencies and the lack of logic (the "mumbo-jumbo") in other religions. However, since such mumbo-jumbo is always intertwined with messages of love, compassion and goodness (values humans are inherently attracted to by virtue of their evolution), when people learn their own religion they become blind to the mumbo-jumbo of that religion. In fact, many become enslaved by the mumbo-jumbo and imagine the humanitarian values as actually arising out of, or at least being inherently part of, the mumbo-jumbo. Further, many consider their religious tracts as actual, authentic history and become zealots over these religious idiosyncrasies.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, Islam especially has come under scrutiny by non-Muslims. To Muslims, the concept of jihad signifies the struggle to overcome oppression within or without. Because the extremists among them can interpret the concept of jihad to sanction wreaking unspeakable horror on fellow humans who the jihadi decide to be the perpetrators of the oppression, jihad is often sighted by non-Muslims to justify their non-tolerance or hatred of Muslims. But there are many other concepts in Islam which to the non-Muslim appear just as silly, inhuman, arbitrary or internally inconsistent.

The problem, however, is not with Islam alone. The other religions that originated in the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity, are equally riddled with their versions of mumbo-jumbo. Inherent to Christianity, for example, are concepts of "Original Sin" and hellfire and ****ation. Believing Christians have rationalized and reconciled to these concepts in a variety of ways, but to non-Christians they do not follow logically from any fundamental principles necessary for human survival or understanding.

But it's not as if these three so-called "Abrahamic" religions are the only ones that mix moral messages with irrational gobbledygook. The other two major religions, originating in Asia, Hinduism and Buddhism, also have their own healthy (or unhealthy!) share of tortured logic. For example, Hinduism in its most essential tract, the Bhagwad Geeta, goes to some length to explain monotheism embodied by thousands of avatars, "justified killing", and "dispassionate need-fulfillment" - concepts which evoke skepticism, distrust, or ridicule among non-Hindus.

Some religions, in addition to prescribing personal thought and conduct, also prescribe civic behavior of a society and thus butt heads with the laws of a nation and those between nations. Many Muslims, for example, think of partitioning religion and civic codes (i. e., "separating Church and State") as antithetical to religion itself. This further complicates the orderly government of people because the question of who calls the legal shots is never resolved.

World's great religions are good and desirable precisely to the extent that they embody brotherly love, compassion and good deeds. Beyond that boundary, they only divide people and confuse ethical and logical thought processes by injecting silly drivel or downright violent orthodoxies in human discourse and interaction. But the invention of god and the creation of religion are unnecessary to promulgate the virtues of love, compassion and good deeds. These virtues are inherent in our common humanity, not in religion - let alone in a particular religion. All we need to do is to articulate these universal virtues without the trappings of religion, in a sort of least-common-denominator version of the Ten Commandments of all the great religions of the world.

But what about the spiritual hunger that impels many to follow their religions? How can this hunger be satisfied in the absence of religion? While not everyone feels this hunger, a vast majority appears to, so this hunger must also be considered part of our evolutionary make-up. And following the codes of thoughts and behavior of a specific religion appear to satisfy the spiritual needs of many people. If religions are abandoned, where can these people turn for spiritual peace? It is true that other behaviors such as meditation and social service satisfy the spiritual needs of some people. But why should these behaviors replace religious practices for those people who are perfectly content with their religion?

The problem is the one we started with: praying to different gods divides people. While a majority of people are perfectly content with letting others pray their own way, others are not. What the world needs, therefore, is a new overarching religion, or a non-religion, which codifies the spiritual aspirations of Man. Is the creation of such a religion practical? Of course not. But that doesn't stop the humanitarian dreamer from dreaming of a new order when religion stops being a destructive, divisive influence on the modern world.


I could not have said it better!!!!!