The following dialogue occurred as a result of a scathing
anti-homosexual editorial that presumed to take the moral high road
under authority of the Bible God, with the author of course taking it
upon himself to speak for this god on matters of all people, to include
other people who call themselves "Christians."
The editorial in question titled, "Homosexual
Christian, An Oxymoron: Conflict at the Outset" had been
forwarded to me by an "anonymous" Christian who no doubt
wished to impose its content on me. The essay was written by a
certain Bob Pappas, a retired U.S. Marine and fundamentalist
Christian.
The essay is a perfect example of how otherwise good people can be
brainwashed and corrupted to the point that words like love, kindness,
and compassion become indistinguishable from opposing terms such as
hate, intolerance and vindictiveness.
TOPICS (Part I)
TOPICS (Part II)
With "Friends" Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
BOB PAPPAS:
Dear Mr. Monson:
Thank you for taking the time to get your anger off your chest. Perhaps
you now feel better, I hope so.
MONSON:
My response was not one of anger but concern, great concern, over the
harm caused by would-be leaders who, presuming the moral high road, do
little but build walls of dissension between people through the
propagation of their self righteous arrogance and twisted bible-thumping
ideologies.
PAPPAS:
You misread the entire passage, you describe it as hate and it is full
of love for all those who live in sin, even you if that is your
condition. It certainly had its applicability to me before I learned the
merits of God's love and Grace.
MONSON:
Well, if your message is not one of dissension and intolerance (primary
products of hate), and read as "Believe our way, or else...",
then the old adage "With friends like these, who needs
enemies?" most assuredly applies.
I read your essay, all of it, and contrary to your assertion I did not
"misread" it; rather, you have been misinformed (perhaps
misled is a better term) about a great many things, which has in turn
brought you to believe that your message (i.e., the True Christian
stance) is actually one of "love" and "kindness" and
"compassion" when in fact it is nothing more than a beacon of
prejudice and deep-seated intolerance for any and all who do not (or
rather "fail to") believe or act in a manner to which you
subscribe (with "you" being applied generally to Christians of
your type and not specific to you).
The logical fallacies you commit in just this one sentence above are
immense (God, living in sin, God's love, grace, etc.). But more on
this later...
God's Love and Grace?
PAPPAS:
God loves you and gave His own Son to die for you and for all
sinners, and that includes me too. The difference between us is that I
have accepted God's love and grace because it is my only hope for
redemption from sin.
MONSON:
And exactly which God would that be Mr. Pappas? Are you referring
to Zoroaster, Mithras, or other dying and resurrecting
"savior" Gods who supposedly offered "salvation from
sin" and divine rewards for belief, and eternal punishment for
non-belief, and all hundreds of years, even millennia before
Christianity took its first baby steps as an upstart religion in
Palestine?
There are literally thousands of different gods worshiped throughout the
world today and throughout history by billions of people who believe(d)
in those deities with as much or more certainty as you believe in yours.
So what makes you think your version of "God", one of the more
youthful versions I might add, is not only A God, but the one (and only)
true God? Such is the arrogance of ignorance.
Moreover, contrary to your "difference between us" statement,
I spent seventeen years as a devout Christian (Baptist) before coming to
grips with reality and maturing beyond such primitive tribal
superstitions. I grew up in the Bible Belt and was baptized and
indoctrinated into belief early on ("let the children come to
me", right?) and was "saved" right in my own living room
by a Baptist minister. I was deeply into the Bible, my church, and
all the dripping Christian propaganda that goes along with it. I
was, like you, a proselytizer who presumed to be of the one true faith,
Christianity, and believed that all those other religions were false,
indeed "of the devil," even though at that time I didn't know
a thing about them, their beliefs, or especially their immense history
that dwarfed my own religion. I was, like you, a proselytizer who
also presumed that I was a True Christian (TM) even if other sects, like
Catholics, Calvanists, JWs, Mormons, et al., were not.
And since you're such an authority on sin, Mr. Pappas, perhaps you could
define that word for me in no uncertain terms? I would like for
you to provide some examples of moral absolutes that are both biblically
based and universal to all cultures on the planet throughout recorded
history. Be warned, however, that after you have completed this I
will demand that you defend the Bible and all of its
"righteous" heroes, including Yahweh and Jesus(!), in terms of
the definitions and examples you provide.
Homosexual Conduct: An "Abomination to
God"?
PAPPAS:
If you took the time to read the entire essay you should have noted the
paragraph:
This article could as easily have been titled
"Worldly Christian is an Oxymoron," but because homosexual
conduct is specifically cited as "an abomination to God," is
therefore, plainly "worldly," and since some ministers and
other leaders condone or justify homosexual conduct for reasons that
are self serving, politically correct, but antithetical to God's law,
this writer has chosen to confront this great evil head-on; and, apply
it to the larger context of, "all have sinned and come short of
the glory of God;" all are in need of salvation; all are
condemned apart from God's love and Jesus' sacrifice of himself; and
all, including homosexuals, who are in Christ will be saved. I should
note that I have never met a practicing homosexual who was in Christ
because homosexual behavior in inherently at odds with God's law.
Perhaps God will allow abuse of His Grace; I for one, do not believe
that He does, and urge those who follow after the lust of the flesh,
and those who condone it to, "go and sin no more."
I do not condemn you for your predilictions, (sic) whatever they happen
to be, that is God's domain. I merely set out what the Bible has to say
about sin, if that troubles you, it's too bad, but I didn't ask God's
opinion, I merely logically went though a reading and analysis.
The good thing is that there is a way out of sin, and that is through
the conversion of ones mind.
MONSON:
As I have already mentioned, I did read your entire essay, including the
passage you cite above. I know that your essay actually makes a
distinction among Christian beliefs (as if that should come as some
surprise--pick any controversial issue and you will find Christians on
opposing sides, each with a list of scripture citations in support of
their view, i.e., "God's view") and chastises those
"ministers and other leaders" who, in your view, "condone
or justify homosexual conduct for reasons that are self serving,
politically correct, but antithetical to God's law..."
So begins your intolerance, and to whom do you presume to speak for?
Why "God" of course, and more specifically "God's
law," presuming as you do that either of these actually exist
outside the minds of the people subscribing to those beliefs. But
what's worse is that, contrary to your claim that you do not condemn
others for their "predilictions," (sic) in fact you do!
If you didn't then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now!
That you try to
pass-the-buck with calling it "God's domain" only shows that
you are arrogant enough to presume that there not only is a God (with a
capital G), but that you speak for this God! Do you also speak for
Allah, for Vishnu, and for the Buddha?
The bottom line, sir, is that you want to stamp your feet and make your
admonitions known, or, as you say, "get your anger off your
chest," but you don't want to deal with the problems of actually
having to defend those views with supportable evidence, so you appeal to
some invisible man in the sky, an abstract negative, and proclaim it to
be the ultimate authority that is above all challenge, after which you
proclaim yourself vindicated for your position of intolerance and
self-righteous presumptions of moral superiority.
GOD APPROVED Sexual
Misconduct in the Bible
MONSON:
It's also interesting that
even the primary premise of your entire argument, that homosexuality is
"an abomination to God," fails in part even in a theological
context within the Hebrew Bible! The citations in question come
from Leviticus 18:22; 20:13:
[Leviticus
18:22] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination. [NRSV]
[Leviticus 20:13] If a man lies with a male as
with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall
be put to death; their blood is upon them. [NRSV]
Notice that the admonition is addressed only to men and not
women! To argue that women are implied in the context is
fallacious since in verses all around these passages women are expressly
mentioned when the admonition is directed at them. For example,
the very next verse after 18:22 above, v.23 states the following in
regard to bestiality:
[Leviticus 18:23] You [men] shall not have
sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor
shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations
with it: it is perversion. [NRSV]
So we may identify
"bestiality" in the case of both men and women as being
condemned by the Bible, but that does not hold in the case of
homosexuality. As such, Bob, who are you to write such
judgmental polemics of condemnation when the god you presume to speak
for does not make such admonitions himself? Hmmm? Are you
going to revise your essay to reflect "God's Word" and make it
known that lesbianism is okay?
And while we're on the
subject, there are other issues of sexuality in the Bible that are even
more disturbing for what they do not condemn! The issue of
incestuous relations in particular are almost universally condemned in
the Bible. But what is not condemned however is the father-daughter
incest relationship! Indeed, the "righteous man,"
Lot is never condemned or punished in any way after getting drunk and
having intercourse with not one but both his daughters, on consecutive
nights no less, and impregnating them in the process! (Gen. 19)
The
Lot Defense
I have often wondered what
would happen in a modern court of law if a man on trial for child
molestation (with DNA tests confirming that the children being carried
by his two daughters) were to invoke The Lot Defense in which he
tries to excuse his actions by claiming that he was "drunk" at
the time (on both nights!) and that they seduced him and therefore it is
by no fault of his own that he got an erection and humped his daughters.
So tell me Bob, do you consider Lot to be a "righteous" man
and a good role model that you would have others emulate? This man
even offered these same "virgin" daughters to the mob of men
in Sodom, "to do with as they please." I wonder if you
have any daughters, Bob? I wonder if you, as a USMC Colonel
(ret.), would ever even consider offering anyone's virgin girls let
alone your own daughters to a mob of men as a viable option for
facilitating the protection of your house guests from sodomy?
I have a daughter myself and
I know that such a course of action as Lot followed truly happen over my
dead body! I suspect that you would choose likewise, or at least I
would hope so, but then you are a peddler of Bible mores and ethics,
right?
PART II
MONSON:
You missed the point, Bob! I absolutely
support your right to say and/or believe anything that you
like (as guaranteed under the 1st Amendment), but you seem to
associate that with having some divine perch of impunity
mandated by your professed god to which all others must recognize and
acknowledge up front! That's the issue here!
You also seem to think that you can
dish-out the vitriolic assertions but not be required to back it up
with evidence, such as in your remarks about Larry Flint and
others--that's called slander. Like your cohorts, Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell (recall their blaming homosexuals,
abortionists, secularists and the ACLU for the Sept. 11th
attacks, because, paraphrasing: "God has lifted his
protection over us for our deviant behavior."), should you be
excused for your vitriol and ignorance when you inflict harm through
unsupported conjecture and supposition? The problem is that you
deem any challenge to your self-proclaimed position of authority
(i.e., "God's Law!") to be a personal attack against you.
To dare challenge someone who "preaches the gospel" is
to be labeled anti-religion, anti-family, un-American,
or worse, to cite just a few of the more common rhetorical comments we frequently
hear today from the pulpits, the media and even the highest
office in the land.
What you seem to take for granted is that
your "message" is something that must, by divine decree,
be imposed on society, indeed the world! Your message is
one of intolerance with the accompanying threats of punishment
(both cornerstones of the Abrahamic religions), in the present through
the practice of subjugation, discrimination and segregation (just
look at the military as an example of this toward gays); and also in
a mythical sense for the afterlife, through threats of hellfire and
damnation in lieu of so-called acts of "abomination
against God" and failure to conform--a potent method of
psychological torture used by the church to control people,
and one that many people are deeply affected and hurt by.
Harm is not limited to just physical abuse!
I have absolutely no problem with
"Christians" (or whatever religion) who just believe in
their religion for themselves and do not presume to have the "one
and only true religion" and summarily try to convert "the
unsaved" or impose their theology on public policy. I have
no problem with Christians who say "live and let live," and
support the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, I have
many friends who are Christians (including a Catholic priest and
several ordained ministers) and are fighting for the same causes of
freedom as I am. The People For the American Way (PFAW)
and Americans United (AU), for example, are largely made up
of Christians defending the separation of church and state and
fighting against the rhetoric of our own religious extremists.
So, Bob, it's not "religion" in general that is the problem,
but rather the people following some religions that feel they
have the right (the "God-given right") to impose it on
anyone and everyone without a thought to the harm that they inflict in
the process! I have never had a problem, for example, with
Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Paganism or any number of indigenous
religions practiced by some native Americans being imposed on me by
their adherents, but that's quite a different story with evangelical
Christians and fundamentalists and especially reconstructionists who
tirelessly impose their dogma on every aspect of society--and they
call themselves "good" and "kind" and
"loving" in the process.
This country is inundated with religion and the "God Bless
America" fervor. There are incessant congressional bills
that attempt to impose Christianity (specific) into public policy and
public schools: More tax benefits for religion; land acquisition
and zoning laws that allow "religious organizations" to
by-pass zoning ordinances and building codes that every legitimate
tax-paying business must still conform to; government
"faith-based" programs that will give billions of public tax
dollars to religious organizations (and "pagans" wouldn't
qualify!); Vouchers, which seek to take money from public schools and
give it to private (98 percent religious) schools; Ten Commandments
Bills to interject Judeao-Christian theology into our public schools;
Bills that force "prayer" in our public schools; Judges that
erect moments to sectarian symbols in their rotundas and even impose
judgments based on the Bible rather than the law!
Since you're on
the homosexuality rampage, Bob, see the latest from the Alabama
Judge (i.e., Mr. Ten Commandments) for a further
example of what I am talking about: http://www.au.org/press/pr0220022.htm
This guy is out of
control!
PAPPAS:
Both those qualities exuded from your
every word to the point that your intolerance is as unbecoming as
those for whom you express disdain. Is your solution to the problem to
kill all Christians, Moselms, Jews or people of other religions that
uniformily condemn homosexual conduct?
MONSON:
Of course not! But when those
Christians, Moslems, Jews or any other religious ideology acquires a
position in a government organization or public institution payed for
by public tax dollars, like the U.S. military, or the President,
or the Attorney General, or a Supreme court Justice, or a
city manager, or a police or fire chief, etc., they are required
to adhere to the Constitution and represent ALL THE PEOPLE, even
if that means supporting issues that may conflict with their private
religious views. The problem, especially today, is that the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights is being trampled to no end by the religious
ideologies of the powers that be, especially by President Bush and
Attorney General Ashcroft, who do not even hide the fact, as is
plainly visible in the link I sent you yesterday.
PAPPAS:
Killing, in addition to being unlawful, it
is inherently a violation of the Consitution. So, that's not the
solution.
MONSON:
Well, golly, Bob, I thought you believed
in "God's Word"? According to the loving, kind,
forgiving, compassionate and just God of the Bible, Yahweh, i.e.,
Jesus, because for Christians they are one in the same remember, the
punishment for these so-called acts of "abomination
against the Lord" is death, and death by stoning at
that!
But while we're on the subject of killing;
tell me, do you agree that it is okay for our military to murder
thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan in our
"revenge" attacks against a terrorist group that is
based in that country? Most Afghans couldn't even
point the United States out on a map, let alone have any
knowledge of the World Trade Center, or that they were
brought down by a terrorist attack.
Salad Bar Theology
PAPPAS:
We may not agree now, or ever, since I believe the essence of the
Bible and evidently you do not, or are ignorant thereof.
MONSON:
Ah, yes, the "essence of the Bible." That means that
you are of the pick-and-choose variety wherein you pick-out what you
like and conveniently ignore all the disturbing, disgusting, silly,
or just plain inconvenient passages that portray your god and your
favorite bible heroes in a less than admirable light. I
suspect, for example, that you will continue your crusade against
homosexuality, even in the case of between women, even though I have
pointed out to you that the Bible
does not condemn
lesbianism. You can BS most people with such
pick-and-choose theology, Bob, but I won't allow you to get
away with such antics!
PAPPAS:
That essence relates the story of mankind's creation as
perfect beings and fall from that perfection. It tells of mankind's
travails, weaknesses and granduer.(sic) It guides us in how to live,
what to embrace and what to shun; and I believe provides the perfect
solution to humankind's suffering and misery, and as I noted before,
it is my only hope.
MONSON:
That a grown man can actually sit there and keep a straight face
while proclaiming a literal belief in an ancient mythological
tale about a certain Adam & Eve, with man being created
from a ball of mud and women coming from that man's rib; and that
so-called sin was brought into the world because of
deception from a talking snake and the eating of a forbidden fruit
from a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil,
then . . . well, Bob, you truly are beyond hope. But just
because you need some pie-in-the-sky crutch to get you through the
day don't presume that that's the case for everyone else in the
world, or that humankind is in and of itself living in
"suffering and misery." That is certainly the
view that the church wants you to believe, and they use it to great
effect in propagating their power over your mind, but that doesn't
mean it is true. So, wallow in your misery if you like, but
try not to infect the minds of our youth and bring them down
into your quagmire of hopelessness, intolerance, and
dissension--It's always one religious crusade after another.
Personal Experience as "Proof" of Religious
Truth?
PAPPAS:
My beliefs are founded and borne out by my own experiences that
include great adventure, sacrifice, successes and failures. Biblical
examples have direct applicability in my own life and so I adhere to
Biblical beliefs and teachings. I have reviewed most religions of the
world and studied some more than others. I respect everyone's right to
believe as they chose, including yours. But I also know what I believe
because of the profound change I have experienced in my own life.
MONSON:
Most peoples lives include great adventure, sacrifice, successes and
failures. So what! What does that prove? Just
because you may find some applicability to your experiences
within tales from the Bible (perhaps more as a consequence
of your strong desire to find such things, rather than
from any sort of divine connection) doesn't make you special; every
other person can say the same thing about their own holy books or
ethical dictums or philosophical systems. I learned far
more and far superior lessons from reading Mahatma Gandhi & Mark
Twain alone (although there are so many more) then anything
the Bible ever had to offer (and I have read the Bible at least
eight times through, and probably many times more in lieu of my
intensive studies of it). A Hindu will easily speak with just
as much and possibly more conviction about the revelations of the
Vedas and Gitas, the Rig Veda in fact being the oldest holy text in
the world. Buddhists revere the Dhammapada and Bhagavad Gita
(as do Hindus). Zoroastrians have the Zend Avesta; Jains have
the Karma-Granthas. Confucians have the Confucian Analects
among others; Taoists have the Tao-Te-Ching, and the list goes on.
The point is, Bob, you are on exceedingly weak ground when you
proclaim the Bible to be some God-breathed text
that all the world must acknowledge and submit to whilst
demoting their own "divinely inspired" holy texts in the
process; a position that is at once arrogant and
silly, especially considering that of the texts listed above the
Bible, especially the Christian Bible, is the new
kid on the block, not the reverse.
The Bible, like all religious texts, has many good things within it
dealing with certain aspects of human nature, but because it is an
ancient text written from male dominated socio-economic and polical
perspectives of the times, it is also incredibly outdated,
especially in terms of legal issues (most of which are silly
and primitive, and at times alarmingly barbaric), and not
particularly applicable to modern society other than as an
interesting topic of comparative study of religion and
literature, along with all other ancient texts from Egypt, Persia, Assyria
and other cultures in the ancient Near East.
PAPPAS:
It may surprise you that I believe that there is an after life and
it will be spent either in what is generally characterized as Heaven
or Hell--forever. I also believe that God will embrace those who
obey His Word as revealed in the Bible, and inner revelations (one's
conscience).
MONSON:
Based on your previous comments about your literalistic beliefs, it
doesn't surprise me a bit that you
also buy into the
literal reward/punishment aspect of Christian theology. But
that does nothing at all to demonstrate that such wishful thinking has
any basis in reality.
One may chose not to believe anything spiritual and thanks be to
God, in this nation the people have that right because men who
believed in God wrote a Constitution that not only allows, but
fosters that right.
MONSON:
Not all the "men who wrote a Constitution" WERE
CHRISTIANS, Bob! Many of our most prominent founding fathers
were deists, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben
Franklin, George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Paine.
Moreover, a few of them had less than good things to say about
Christianity in their private writings and letters to colleagues and
friends. And even those that
were Christians were
intelligent enough to see reason and leave out
any
reference whatsoever to Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, the Ten
Commandments or any other religious undertones from the
Constitution! For more on this see my essay,
Pardon Me, Are You a "True American"?
Pappas, Sexually Abused as a Child, and Damned Angry
About It!
PAPPAS:
That there are those whose strongly held views contrary to your own,
should not come as a surpirse.(sic) If you view me as intolerant, that
is your right, the same can be said of anyone. My views are
strengthened by the fact that as a young boy I was sexually abused by
an older male neighbor. Phychologists (sic) would label him as a
pedofile.(sic) Upon reflection, he was a sexual predator, a pervert
who preyed on at least one young, naive boy.
MONSON:
I'm sorry for your negative experiences as a child. Abuse of
any kind (sexual or otherwise) is inexcusable, and that stands not
only for children but also the elderly, infirm and everyone in
between. But that doesn't mean the sky is falling or that the
acts of some represent a trend toward a "decaying
society" or "moral dysfunction" brought on by a
lack
of belief in God, or a
failure to adhere to the Bible
as a moral guide, or any other religious ideology. That's just more
pulpit propaganda.
Your anger as the result of your childhood experience has
understandably, albeit erroneously, clouded your judgment concerning
homosexuality in that you presuppose that anyone who is homosexual
is necessarily also a pedophile--a fallacious and dangerous
assumption to be sure. I wonder, do you also
consider all heterosexual males to be pedophiles given that
statistics show that young girls are more likely to be molested
by a "heterosexual" pedophile than a homosexual?
Tell me, Bob, in your 30 years in the Marines were you ever
stationed in places like, oh, the Philippines, where the
exploitation of young girls by our military "heroes" is
rampant? Did you ever have sexual relations (exploitations)
with any of these underage girls? Did any of your
brothers-in-arms engage in such "perverted, pedophile"
activity? Huh, far from being some secret act of
"sin," I have heard these guys brag of such
exploits! But we sure don't see them being labeled as
"pedophiles" and "sexual predators"!
I find it especially interesting, moreover, that such leniency is
given to all these Catholic priests, pastors, deacons and religious
youth group leaders that have been caught molesting
young boys (and girls)! In many cases within the Catholic
church in particular these things were known to be happening for
decades(!), but it was always kept quiet, in house, and ultimately
nothing done about it ("can't let something like this get
out," right?). But even when these religious pedophiles do
get caught and are prosecuted they are generally
spared from the usual media polemics that any other child
molester will get raked over the coals with; namely, terms like
"predator" and "evil" and "deviant."
Instead, they get referred to as "Good
Christians who have done great things for their church and
community" but they "just lost their way" or
"had a moment of weakness" or were "under the spell
of the devil." Why is that?
Responsibility is
always directed at some other
aspect other than at the person himself, and the devil is the
classic scapegoat, followed closely by a "corruption of
society" which was in turn caused by atheists and
humanists and other non-conformists. And Jesus, of course, never foots
any of the blame, and certainly the church and the plethora of guilt
trips it imposes on it's flocks about the "sinfulness" of
everything relating to the sex drive and pleasure, going
so far as to impose upon
men of God not to
"defile" themselves with a women!
The more I see of it, the more that I see it legitimized at all
levels, the more abhorrent it becomes, especially in light of what I
read and study; and that is what prompted the essay. For every
humanism argument in favor of totally open sexual conduct, there are
ten disastrous outcomes which eventually culminate in eternal
damnation.
MONSON:
Oh, give me a break, Bob! That is a bunch of crock!
Maybe if you actually read or studied something outside the
agendas of right-wing fanaticism you would actually learn something
more in tune with reality! I'll tell you what, if you would
like to be the defender of the faith as being the moral standard, I
will defend the modern day morals and ethics of
"humanism" and demonstrate how society in general is far
better today than it was just 30 years ago, or 50 years ago, or 100
years ago, or 200 years ago, or any other time in history! We
will talk about things like crusades, inquisitions, witch trials,
colonialism, slavery, genocide, gang violence, segregation,
discrimination, suffrage, sexual abuse, child abuse, spousal
abuse, health care & medicine, corruption in law enforcement and
judiciary, education, and many other topics of like nature.
We will see just how horrible the world is today compared
to the past. I'm sick to death of the religious pundits
telling everyone about how "corrupt" society is today
compared to "the good 'ol days," because
"the evil secularists took God out of the schools!"
and other polemical rhetoric that seeks to place blame anywhere
but at themselves. I'll tell you what this country suffers
from--analcranialinversionitis!
Since I believe in an eternal after life, though I realize you may
not, it is my right and responsibility to share the views that come
from a lifetime of experience.
MONSON:
I believe in life BEFORE death! Life in the here and now is
what matters, not some hoped-for eternal bliss in a heavenly realm
singing Kum-ba-ya for which there is not a shred of
evidence. Those are the products of fear and uncertainty and
the arrogant desire for immortality. In the words of Robert
Ingersoll:
I live, and that of itself is infinitely
wonderful. It is no more wonderful that I may be again, if I
have been, than that I am, having once been nothing.
I care about people in the here and now and I have devoted myself to
a profession that allows me to help people in their time of need on
a daily basis. I can and do make a difference in peoples
lives. I have saved many lives and I have seen many
die tragically, including children, sometimes right in front of me
in spite of my best efforts to save them.
And just because you believe in an eternal after life does not mean
it is your "responsibility" to share those views with a
view to converting others to those beliefs.
You evidently don't like that, but in our great country which I
defended for 30 years as a US Marine, it is my right. It was to
protect the right to hold differences of opinion, among the others
enunciated in our Constitution that I served, and would do so again.
So, belief in God and saying so, is not the problem, it is a
validation of everything we hold dear.
MONSON:
How odd that, far from "protecting" the right to hold
"differences of opinion," every facet of your essay was a
vindictive ATTACK on that very premise, i.e., a persons right to
believe as s/he likes!
Indeed, that Constitution you claim you "defended for 30
years as a US Marine" somehow ended up on the cutting room
floor as you sacrificed "We the People" for "In
[YOUR] God We Trust," and the moral impositions you presumed to
apply to all others in that regard!
Whatever honors you may have received during your military
service, there is one badge you no doubt forgot to adorn yourself
with, and that is the Badge of Intolerance.
Beyond that, I most assuredly do appreciate the people
in our military, even if I do not agree with the self-serving
ideologies our Government uses to employ it's military might
when and where it deems fit, basically telling the rest of the world
to "kiss our ass because we have the guns and we will use
them if you try to defy us." Contrary to popular
media propaganda, especially the "God Bless America"
bluff, we are not the "good guys" or the
"defenders of democracy" or "the brightest beacon of
freedom" that we make ourselves out to be (indeed, such
is rarely the case) . Much of the world hates us, and with
good reason given the despicable acts we have done and continue to
do, and the bloody regimes we not only support but actually help to
create, all over the world. The Afghanistan debacle is just
the latest example, only this time it came back and gave us a
black-eye.
It's interesting that in the 1980's, when the rhetoric against the
Soviets as The Red Menace was at a fevered pitch,
our own government poured billions of dollars into arming and
training these very same al-Qaida and Taliban groups to fight
against the "evil" Soviets! We knew what kind
of people these groups were, that they were terrorists, but because
their motivations served our own interests our propagandists called
them "Freedom fighters!"
Turn or
Burn
PAPPAS:
It is evident that you are a bright young man with great passion. I
applaud that. Keep seeking truth, you will find it if you are truly
open and honest. In the alternative, you will die an ignoble, eternal
death should you fail.
MONSON:
Yes, the "turn or burn" rhetoric never fails to rear its
ugly head. This silliness would actually be humorous were it
not so destructive.
It would be the height of
intolerance--and intolerance is a species of violence--to believe
that your religion is superior to others' religions and that you
would be justified in wanting others to change over to your faith.
--Mahatma Gandhi
It's interesting to me that, according to your chosen religion,
Adolf Hitler, who was a devout Catholic that was proclaimed by
the church to be a "Soldier for Christ"; who was proponent
of Christian-only prayer in all schools; who
politicized "family values" and
criminalized homosexuality and abortion; who had his soldiers
wear belt buckles with the term "Gott mit uns"
(God is with us) on them, and had priests sprinkle holy water on
their uniforms; a monster who is to be rewarded with
eternal happiness in heaven with Jesus! Conversely,
Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, and one of the greatest humanitarians the
world has ever known, and also one of the most well-studied students
of comparative religion, including the Bible and Christianity, is
destined to burn in the Christian hell for all eternity with no
possibility of reprieve for his "failure" to be
"truly open and honest" in his search for the truth.
I wonder how "truly open and honest" you really are, Bob?
Somehow I think you are the one who has been wearing the
rose-colored glasses all your life, indoctrinated and trained to
conform, trained to be biased and intolerant.
Cheers,
Bruce Monson