Slashdot Mirror
TSA Violated Privacy Act
pin_gween writes "Remember when the TSA said they wanted info on travelers last year? They said they were only using names to test new software. Apparently, they lied. The Guardian has an AP wire about a Congressional report on the TSA. From the article: 'The agency actually took 43,000 names of passengers and used about 200,000 variations of those names - who turned out to be real people who may not have flown that month, the GAO said. A TSA contractor collected 100 million records on those names.' They also 'published a second notice indicating that it would do the things it had earlier said it wouldn't do.' A TSA spokesman said the info will be destroyed when the test is over. My question -- will the test actually end?"
Microsoft: "You can trust our trusted computing platform"
SCO: "There is UNIX code in Linux"
Bush: "We will get the WMD out of Iraq"
etc etc.
Nobody really cares in the end, it's all so easy to forget being blatantly lied to as long as things are mostly OK in the end.
Right?
is because there are people behind all of this. People are ultimately flawed, and can't be completely trusted without auditing processes
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
This is how companies handle privacy. They do something the majority of people will accept (taking names) and then they secretly change the scope of their project to get much more data. Then their defence is "If they gave us their name, we assumed they would be OK giving us this. We are a reputable company". I think they should be prosecuted for this, what if their system got hacked? That is a great deal of possible identity theft.
Voice your opinion!
We must always remember that a commitment from a company is not worth the electrons over which it is communicated.
2B || !2B
is because there are people behind all of this. People are ultimately flawed, and can't be completely trusted without auditing processes
Are you implying that they can be partially trusted?
You're not allowed to know that under the Patriot Act. In fact, even asking has identified you as a terrorist; the Department of Homeland Security has been notified.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm starting a grass roots initiative right here, right now. Every passenger will be required to fly naked under the influence of ecstasy. As a result, we will have no hi-jackers, at least not the kind that commandeer aircraft.
The TSA was a bad idea, it costs much more than the previous group of morons did, and don't do a better job than the last group of morons.
Instead because its goverment we get Grandmothers, and children stripsearched, because profiling is bad.
I can't help but believe that the level of incompedance is intentional, setting the agency up to be dissolved (privatized) with a juicy contract to Haliburton
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
What if a huge neural network was fed all those names. If they destroy the data, the neural network still knows those names!
Am I right?
I honestly promise to never do it again.
-- Cheers!
That's what I thought.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
It doesn't surprise me that the TSA has demonstrated contempt for the law here. As a regular traveler, I can tell you that they already (with some notable exceptions whose names I wish I had so I could cite them as positive examples) have contempt for the actual public they are charged with protecting. They have gone the way of all elites who profess to act in the name of the people, but actually do things that are in interally focused institutional interest.
I can certainly understand that law enforcement wants to "get the bad guys". Unfortunately, so much of today's law enforcement activity has little or nothing to do with actual criminals and spends most of its time operating against ordinary citizens. If you think this is limited to terrorism, think again. The Illinois State Police where I am routinely set up "seat belt enforcement zones" where people are pulled over and forced to prove that they aren't law breakers. It's similar to more and more "checkpoints" that are set up for all sorts of things and a presumption on the part of the police that they have the right to search you just to find out if you are doing anything wrong. That puts the 4th amendment on its head, and unfortunately our courts have gone along with it. Unless you are actually in your home, you can probably assume you can be investigated, searched, questeioned, etc. by the cops for any reason or for no reason at all.
So I don't see the TSA as some unique manifestation of anti-terror laws or a rogue agency. I see them as very symptomatic of what has been going on in law enforcement for a long time. This is just the next chapter.
No one else will protect your "freedom". Your liberty is your responsibility. Shorn of its Soviet enemy, America becomes its enemy. Tragedy of the Grotesque.
Don't you love it when people predict that shit like this will happen, and they're instantly met with tinfoil hat jokes?
If you have nothing to hide then we just have to dig a little deeper, don't we?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...they keep Ralph Nader and Cat Stevens from flying, I don't care what they do!
The TSA will, of course, lie whenever possible. Because they have no accountability. And lying gives them power. Not just "to take over the world", but to do a lousy job. To be lazy, incompetent, and still get paid.
Really, it's completely obvious that, except for the Qaeda and the Taliban, that slogan about "the post-9/11 world" everyone on TV chants, "everything changed", is total BS. Nothing changed, except the ability to scare people into submission went off the charts. People who wanted war in Iraq, no matter what, got their war. People who wanted giant defense budgets got them. People who wanted to discard habeas corpus protections got rid of them. People who wanted Republicans to control all the branches of government got them. People who wanted an excuse for a broken economy, to cover up offshoring, inadequate education, failed confidence from Enron, WorldCom, ArthurAndersen, and a generation of Wall Street snake oil salesmen, got their excuse. People who wanted tax shirking got it. People who wanted racial profiling and massive privacy invasion got it. People who wanted government handouts to their welfare states, at the cost of $trillions in debt, got all that. And all the oil profiteers got $60:barrel oil, which costs little more to extract and sell than when it was $25. And of course they got federal tax credits for buying SUVs that get <15MPG, rather than 50MPG alternative energy vehicles.
But only if you embraced terror: became a terrorist. People who didn't, like the Democrats, didn't get what they wanted. They didn't get their candidate in the White House, because they didn't get a big noise in the media about how the Qaeda specifically planned to avoid attacking the US. Freedom lovers haven't gotten the rest of the 1990s "peace dividend", like forcing China to stop its tyranny with the "market power of the US" - because the businesses which own the new Chinese industries, and their American markets, are profiting from the fear that distracts from the perpetual terrorism that keeps their Chinese slaves in line. And we didn't get Osama bin Laden. WHERE'S OSAMA? Where's that "democratic Iraq", the "quelled Iraqi threat to American security"? It's with those who failed to embrace terror: on the ash heap of history.
The lists of who got what, and who didn't, line up perfectly on who "embraces and extends" terrorism, and who doesn't. And it's not just "who's for and who's against". Because Democrats, the losers in the political duopoly, have been just as "against" terrorism in their laws and policies, as Republicans. Republicans, however, have cast Democrats as preferring "therapy" to "killing" for terrorists, though that's a vicious lie. But that way to scare Americans about Democrats is successful terrorism, using planebombs as fuel for political power. Really, there's little difference between the Qaeda and the Bush uses of terrorism. The planebombs and tube-bombs are attacks, they're sabotage of our essential infrastructure. But they're really just the necessary spark for the actual terrorism, the terror perpetuated in the media and among people. Just like the Taliban who conquered Afghanistan on the spark of repeling the Soviets with "Islam", the neocons are conquering America on the spark of repeling the "liberals" with Christian evangelism: the Christaliban who back Bush with faith. Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies among people in Washington to allow or encourage a "Pearl Harbor event" to justify their neocon agenda, it's undeniable that some have rode the wave of fear with skill and aplomb. So we're going to get nothing but more terrorism, with the minimum of actual bombs that destroy corporate property. We're going to get more fear, more lies, more abuse. Until we wake up and reject the terror, dispelled by knowledge, and eradicate the terrorists. Starting with those in Washington and the corporate media who are closest, and doing most of the damage. Cleansing the TSA of thse lying tyrants would be a good start.
--
make install -not war
My question is....can you actually believe them considering they have already lied uptil this point? How I would love to work in the government; lie right through your teeth to get what you want, if you get caught, admit that you lied, shrug and move on. No sweat.
Private security as more poorly performing or as more personally invasive? Sure, pre-9/11 private security at airports was a joke; but so was our government intelligence, for example.
Look at the world today. There are at least as many examples of public sector failures as private (our public schools being a great example). Many of the most polluted sites on our country were made that way by government agencies such as the US military. And of course let's not forget such shameful items as the Tuskegee Experiment.
The fact is, government is almost exactly like a large corporation in every respect - only on a larger scale. As I've often argued, government is the ultimate multi-national corporation. Both corporations and goverment are nominally controlled by their owners (the shareholders or voters) but the reality is that entrenched management really runs the show most of the time. Both are characterized by a bureaucratic mindset.
One big difference is that if a corporation does something wrong, it is much easier to hold accountable. You can sue a corporation who hurts you - governments can only be sued if they decided they want to let you (sovereign immunity). Governments have regulatory oversight of corporations, but there is little oversight of the government itself. Corporate officials who screw up can be sued personally for damaged (e.g., the Enron board). Public officials are immune from lawsuits related to their jobs by law. Also, corporations can rarely force you to do business with them (with some notable exceptions), but the government is generally your supplier of its services whether you want it or not.
Overall, I think we'd be better served with most serviced provided by a competitive private sector market, with vigorous public oversight to hold the providers accountable.
About midway through last year I started being searched every time I went through airport security. Every time. Every airport. What did I do to deserve this? I have no clue, except I tend to express somewhat liberal views on the internet.
:P
The same thing happened to an aquaintence at about the same time. I found out about it because we were both on a flight to Honduras with our local scuba club. That must have really sprung some alerts.
From the article A TSA contractor collected 100 million records on those names.
That is what worries me- How thoroughly are the contractors being vetted? If you visit the Federal Biz Opportunities site http://fbo.gov/ you will see that the gov't contacts out incredible amounts of work. I trust the US Military with my security (We could argue about the military and privacy all day so lets not bring that up), but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
What I'm getting at, the TSA will/has become a way to go out and find people who are guilty of crimes. Next, deadbeat dads, tax evaders, parking tickets, speeding tickets, etc ... - As others have said, "Good -bye 4th Amendment! We'll miss you!"
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
This kind of thing is not surprising... Not the part about the TSA violating the law, but the part about them screwing up data, and not knowing when the test will end.
Have any of you who are flinging around "evil conspiracy" crap ever worked on large government software projects?
Those things go on forever, rescoping, changes, rewrok, bugs, idiot specifications that have to be met even though they dont make sense... the list goes on and on. Its usually because of some law or another that mandate the software have a given function in it (even if it makes no sense), and the management is far from sterling - and the bureacracy that sits astride it moves at a glacial pace, making it nearly impossible to get design changes approved in any kind of timely fashion - I'm talking months not weeks, for even minor changes.
Thats been my experience nearly every time when working as a government employee. And this was at a federal defence agency that actually is known for getting things done fairly well and relatively quickly. (and this also explains why I am no longer a government employee - you can only take so much before your head asplodes).
Remember when they formed that TSA, it was carved from people who were tossed out of other agencies (remember, government agencies fight like mad to keep the best from leaving) - usually that means those are people the other agencies wanted to get rid of -- making the TSA a potential dumping ground for incompetents, malcontents, and desk-sitter-do-nothings-deadwood.
So don't attribute to malice what is far, far more likely to be incompetence. Especially at a new agency.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Its some scarry stuff! eh?
Well said. If there was a "mandatory reading" on Slashdot, your quote would be part of it. Too bad moderation only goes to 5.
Huge personal info databases? We created the technology and wrote the code to make it possible. We gave the information when asked, because we didn't want the hassle that would occur when we said "no, that's none of your business."
We accepted the notion of Social Security and believed the government when they told us that SS#s would *never* be used for identification except by the SSA.
We elected officials based on the performance of the economy ... which encouraged them to stay out of the way of businesses as they tracked, junk-mailed, and spammed us.
We accepted the transition from cash to credit cards because we liked the convenience ... never blanching at the fact that we were leaving a paper trail for ourselves every month.
We accepted the notion that the First Amendment was all about the right to any kind of free speech whatsoever, even commercial junk mail by corporations, who are persons only as a legal convenience.
We were so scared of sexual predators in our schools that we willingly asked the government to take fingerprints of every school employee to match against their databases.
And above all, we clamored for greater security in our own country -- we accepted the 9/11 commission report -- because losing all of our rights seemed more palatable and *less likely* than our becoming the next Twin Towers victims.
Has government and business taken away our privacy? Yes -- but only because we wanted them to.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Never of course. They are taking the google approach that everything is perpetually in beta testing.
I'm so sick and tired of all the stupid libertarians/liberals here always misunderestimating the President, whose only goal is to keep us all safe from harm.
Terrorists hate America because they hate our freedom, right? By taking away Americans' freedom, you effectively remove the terrorist threat. Take that Osama Hussein!
Waddaya gonna do? It's not like anybody going to vote these people out of office or anything. It has been reported that the majority wants the patriot act to be extended and strengthened. For those who want their freedoms back, it looks like they're in for a very long fight. Welcome to the new dark age. Ahhh...nature...aint she sweet?
What?
From the article A TSA contractor collected 100 million records on those names.
That is what worries me- How thoroughly are the contractors being vetted? If you visit the Federal Biz Opportunities site http://fbo.gov/ you will see that the gov't contacts out incredible amounts of work. I trust the US Military with my security (We could argue about the military and privacy all day so lets not bring that up), but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???
They don't care. They don't have to. They're the US Government!
--
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!
bork bork bork!
This is why it is ALWAYS better to never LET the data fall into the hands of people who shouldn't have it. Of course, this was engineered by the same governmental infalliblity that gave us the WMD fantasy, so there wasn't much people could do to stop it. I'd suggest rolling some heads this coming election, but that requires a spine- I'm not sure American voters are up to the task.
He said the testing is designed to find out what kind of data airlines will need to get - such as passengers' birthdates - so they can turn it over to the government to check against watch lists.
I don't know whether to break out in hysterical laughter, or start sobbing uncontrollably. I can't think of a single reason that a few HUNDRED names (a thousand might be pushing it) wouldn't have provided this information. Or...maybe just thinking the process through for a minute. Now there's a novel idea.
With a secondary use as evidence of what a good citizen Microsoft is when it is taken to court.
Blar.
The cowardly majority of citizens who were no where near the blasts yet clammored the loudest for liberty-stealing 'safety measures'?
No, the fear-mongering media and the pussified general public caused this to happen.
I was bitching since the first plane hit that this would happen...you probabler were too.
Blar.
>but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???
r iors/faqs/
this is exactly how some soldiers feel in iraq
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/war
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Apparently it's illegal to stand up and incite my fellow countrymen to standup against the government and throw off the repressive shackles of tyrrany.
The Privacy act Violates you!
Good job son, way to mod me down to giving my opinion. An opinion, I might add, shared by a a majority.
You got played. Accept it child, and live to grow another day.
Blar.
to this admin.
And this could almost certainly have been uttered in the white house for the last 5 years. What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
Don't be harsh on this contractor, man... maybe they are just preparing for when the contract is up and they have something to fall back on, like competing with www.ZabaSearch.com. I think it's retarded that collecting info in this manner is illegal for the government but perfectly acceptable for everyone else in the world. My own attitude is that all the info collectors of the world should be hung by their balls.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fuck you. Clinton lies about his blowjob. And Bush lied about a fucking war. He cost the lives of hundrends of and hundreds of Americans.
Fucking brainwashed troll.
I'm a Republican and I know Bush lied. I do not want our party to be lead by a liar who gets thousands of people killed and nor should you. We aresupposed to be the party of God yet we get thisman as our leader? Something is wrong here, I see it, I only pray to God you see it before Judgement Day comes.
BTW, many of us disliked kerry almost as much, because we are libertarians, not democrats. Your guy won due to cheating.
I only hope now, that there is good proof of GWB/cheney being involved with being a traitor (the outing of a CIA agent in the military IS aiding and comforting the enemy and subject to execution). and Yes, the CIC should fall under military rule on this one.
How do you find out if your name/info was used?
You're supposed to be the party of small government and letting people live their own lives, it's the "party of God" conservatives who have infiltrated and corrupted that original ideal into something else entirely.
Original republicans would have believed that the right to be personally free from coercion and compulsion is paramount, that that is the very definition of liberty. The conservatives believe that's man's nature as a child of God is paramount, and that liberty is actually restricting personal freedom in favour of encouraging religious adherance.
Essentially, they believe that it's okay to oppress the people (by censorship, by legally disadvantaging homosexuals, by imposing moral rather than practical laws on people) if that oppression brings about a greater fulfilment of society as good Christians, something which is completely opposed to the ideals of true liberty on which America was originally founded.
How can you fight people that have such an alien view of liberty, and even of truth? For the radical conservatives - and the radical leftwing idealogues too - truth is no longer defined as "that which is physically actual in the universe" and is instead "that which most supports the cause". The current example of the thinking is "What Karl Rove did is perfectly okay, because he did it to advance the cause".
at what point does a person's illegal action get superseced by their legal ones? The money that BG has, was obtained illegally. Now he donates part of that to charity and regularly ties it to MS sales. So you have decided that a small amount of charity is good enough reason to accept him as ok. cool.
Sadaam, at one point, started giving money to world wide charities, but a number of them refused to take the money. By your criteria, Should he be forgiven his past transgressions and illegal gotten funds?
So what is the accepted cash flow to get a society (or a small group) to forgive past transgressions?
Of course, GWB recently accepted libia's re-engagement back in the free-world even with proven murder by them. I wonder what that took? did any money flow on that one?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A couple of things to keep in mind here:
Now, I'm not saying that what the TSA does with the data they muster is right or valid, but I am saying that you need to be a little more informed in your outrage.
If you think what the TSA is doing is unacceptable, see what is happening elsewhere. The US government requires airline companies worldwide to grant US agencies access to passenger database of the airlines, if an airline enters US air space (even if the airline has no destination in the US, that makes no difference, contrary to international treaties). The information exchanged is fairly extensive and does not end at what you eat (no kidding). Even if a person just flies within Europe, for example, all available personal data of the traveler have to be provided to US agencies. This allows the US agencies to produce detailed profiles of everybody. This may be useful to trace suspects. But knowing for whom certain persons work makes it possible to trace the activities of companies, too. An increased number of trips from company A to the HQ of B may indicate that A is bidding for a contract with B. Now, all these measures are imposed in the name of the fight against terrorism. You may think this is all right since the US government has to protect US citizens. Right you are. But did you know that we are dealing with bilateral agreements? The EU has the same access to US data, according to the treaty. Suddently you are in the spotlight! Do you want other governments to watch your life? Now how do think about this matter? Is it acceptable that there is zero discussion about this matter in the US media? The TSA experiments are just games.
Are you implying that a Democrat government would have always been honest and straight talking?
Excuse me while I go into hysterics.
Every time I read comments like "we did it to ourselves" and "the govenment is outsourcing my SSN!" I'm reminded that I'm reading Slashdot where _everyone_ likes to generalize to the point of self-induced paranoia. I don't trust the government or any corporatation... or anyone I don't know with my PII either.
The point is - that's why we have laws. Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA, GLBA and several others. Compliance is a major issue among many many US firms and some are taking proactive measures and fixing security, business processes and controls around PII. It's costing them millions of dollars. Corps are also legally held responsible for where they send your PII. They can't just outsource you SSN to Nigeria for "processing".
As a side note US is actually behind Europe on many privacy issues. As a general rule of thumb in US once you disclose your information to a corporation - they own it and choose how to use it. In Europe and some other countries around the world the corp doesn't own their customers' PII - the customers still do. Firms have to ask for permission to use your PII for something.
My question to you all is: Now that you know, what are you going to do?
Will you snipe from the sidelines, or will you take action? Will you communicate your true thoughts and feelings to your representatives, or will you find it adequate to post those thoughts and feelings here, preaching to the choir, but doing little more? (Those of you who are not US citizens, let not this fact stop you from contacting your own government officials--after all, can they not learn from example, or take warning from your (preemptive?) voice?)
Immediately after I post this, I intend to contact at least two of my representatives. It's the weekend, I have no envelopes (just now), and I know I might forget to write by the time I do, so I will be emailing them--but it is better than nothing, and it is action I can take now.
~UP
Eat the Path.
"We're supposed to be the party of God..."
Give me a break! This is an example of Republican brainwashing of the ignorant masses. Your party has no claim to God, there are good dedicated Christians in every political party. Perhaps you mean you are the party of radical Christian fundalmentalists which feel free to ram their religious beliefs down everyone else's throat. There are many Middle Eastern countries which have fundalmentalist leaders who also consider themselves the 'Party of God.' You have more in common with those close-minded mullahs than you would like to believe.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
They also 'published a second notice indicating that it would do the things it had earlier said it wouldn't do.' A TSA spokesman said the info will be destroyed when the test is over.
And when the test is over, what stops them from publishing a third notice indicating that they won't destroy it after all?
If this sort of thing happened in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office would be all over them.
I don't fly.
+++
My new Home
... almost as mad as the fact that Muslim terrorists use passenger jets to crash into tall buildings and kill thousands of people .
I do not like the TSA's deception/incompetence/whatever. But please put this story in perspective. Evil terrorists want to kill us. TSA was created to try to thwart them. If the TSA is erring on the side of caution, it's too bad they are making mistakes. But if those mistakes stop evil murderers from blowing things up with jets with my family on them, I'm not going to be too upset.
-Dan tdaxp
Most Christians tend to be conservative though, because we believe in the right to life. So when given a choice between a liberal and a conservative, it isn't very surprising that the conservative, who also happens to be Republican, is chosen by more Christians.
Scott Simontis
Yes, that is the answer! Bad things never happened... lalalalalalalalalala! :: sticks fingers in ears ::
Furthermore, what part about blindly following a leader who is willing to lie about causes for going to war (christ, people die in those things!), who then later says "I haven't made any mistakes." I see nothing constructive about this stance at all. I'm an independent and not much of a fan of the democrats either, but seriously - get a clue. Or is Bush lying just a part of the liberal conspiracy to destroy America?
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
Read what I wrote. Closely. I'm against Bush yet I'm a conservative Repbulican.
No Shit. I appluad your big balls to put this so clearly.
This nation was started with a religious belief in tolerance. Tolerance of religion was a big one. Does this mean that the Founding Fathers meant tolerance of religion just so long as you weren't a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist...? Probably not.
I consider any political party that tends to align itself with any church doctrines or promotion of religious ideals onto the country at large to be as threatening as the Iranian Mullahs in power there. It's the belief in a religiously based morality that is not so threatening provided that it is compatable with, or overridden by the ideal of Freedom of Religion or Seperation of Church and State.
Just to be annoying, I do not believe that this applies to religious beliefs consistent with Satanic cults or human sacrifices. How do I draw that distinction between one religion and another? Because of my own moral fiber based on my own religious beliefs. So my tolerance of Relious practices is itself flawed because I demand some compliance to my beliefs at the same time.
But at least I can be consistent and recognize that I do not have a perfect system. But there is a common thread through all major religions with a long lifespan and that is, "Don't be an Ass."
Religion is simply a cause du jour; in the '50s, it was Communism; in the '30s, it was isolationism; in the 1890's, it was the gold standard.
Don't be manipulated by the anti-religious rhetoric. Anti-religionists are no more freedom-loving than the Christians they demonize. If you doubt it, consider the French Revolution.
Christians in this country, even the conservative ones, are light-years away from mullahs in Afghanistan. American Christians do not issue fatwas on their opponents. They do not roam the streets in gangs looking for infidels to brutalize. They don't force women to wear veils, don't execute others for being non-Christian, and don't carry out suicide bombings for the sake of their cause.
The only plausible connection between American Christians and mullahs is that they are both zealous for their religion. That's pretty slender.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Most contractors for the government, especially for DHS or TSA, and mostly for the military, are required to get certain levels of security clearance. It's not easy to get clearance (last I heard, it cost at least $10,000 for a company to get clearance for a single employee) and most people who have clearance used to work for the military or the government. If you're lucky enough to get clearance as a civilian, it usually means you're a genius or you've been in the business long enough.
Most security clearance checks consist of polygraphs, credit and character background checks (guys in suits interview your friends and family) and checks to make sure you're not afiliated with some shady political or criminal organization.
Even as a contractor for the USPS I had to get drug tested and fingerprinted.
Patriot act and all the ensuing stuff is not about terrorism. If it was about terrorism, then the act would be granting NSA/CIA the ability to monitor americans and interfere with them. In stead, it gave the same capabilities to FBI and DOD that NSA/CIA had, but for use on US citizens.
But if those mistakes stop evil murderers from blowing things up with jets with my family on them, I'm not going to be too upset.
But what if they don't ? What if they just serve to increase government control over its citizens instead, while doing little about terrorism ?
Do you blindly trust a government that is, by and large, corporation- and church-controlled ? Actually - do you honestly believe that this is about terrorism ?
where, in the name of security, we will let the government do whatever it wants.
Well, I happen to disagree with your post, but damn that sig is cool.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Um. Republicans are not the party of God, genius. As a former republican, I find that statement pretty fucking offensive.
Republicans are about fiscal responsibility. Self reliance. Smaller government. Well, they used to be at least.
Maybe what you meant was that you're a Conservative.
Most Christians tend to be conservative though, because we believe in the right to life.
This is why religion and politics should NEVER meet. What have the Christians traded for the "right to life" by sleeping with the dogs of corporate greed? If you are known by the company you keep, is it any surprise that being led around by a group of lying scumbags has so severely hurt the image of Christianity in the eyes of many?
Religions are compromised by compromise. Trading away your moral values for a vote means you don't value your morals very highly.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Just stepping out on a limb here, but:
fatwas on their opponents: Maybe I'm mistaken, but there was a series of pretty big scandals relating to murder of doctors. Far right Christian activists have published lists of addresses and created things like wanted posters. Sounds like a fatwa to me. BBC reference
infidels to brutalize: One very well-known case is that of Matthew Shepard, who was beaten to death, most likely for being gay. While the argument can certainly be made that hatred for homosexuals isn't an entirely Christian phenomenon in this country, it would be absurd to argue that extreme right-wing Christianity doesn't instigate this kind of violence, and stigmatize homosexuality to a very dangerous degree. (Reference: wikipedia article God Hates Fags, a site by the Westboro Baptist Church (while this site seems too absurd to be real, it seems indicative)
suicide bombings: Again, abortion clinics have been bombed by right-wing Christians. Not suicide bombings, but I'm too lazy to search a reference.
I won't argue the rest of the points (though I disagree that all of them are absent here). My point is that you're being a little obstinate and one-sided in your response. We have plenty fo horribly hateful and evil Christians over here. The only reason we might be better off as a whole is because of how amazingly better our conditions are. Maybe the better point is that the vast majority of Christians here (and likely, Muslims there), aren't hateful, evil people. We have plenty of nutjob extremists here, and they are NOT light-years detached from extremists all over the world, regardless of what you may hope. It may not be an everyday occurrence, but zealotry is not the only common bond that I see.
-Greg
and don't carry out suicide bombings for the sake of their cause.
Christian bombers are generally smarter than the Muslim ones and manage to blow up their abortion clinics and other such targets without killing themselves.
You know its funny ... I used to call myself Christian but I can't anymore becuase it has become a poisoned religion by the likes of the so called "Christian" conservatives, religous right. I think the same thing can be said of the Republican party, it has become poisoned by these same groups, touting "family values" that never used to be family values.
t ionism
a l.htm
Christian conservatives/Christian fundamentalists are identical in every way to Islamic Fundamentalists except for the suicide bombings. I guess you could say the Christians aren't as dedicated to their cause or have as much an incentive to sacrifice themselves as their Islamic counterparts. Anyone who does not believe this has been brainwashed by these same Christian Conservatives/Fundamentalists into thinking they are mainstream. They are NOT mainstream in any sense of the word. The ultimate goal of many Christian Conservatives is to make the USA a theocracy/ theonomic/ dominionistic nation:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://wlo.org/ccwatch/
http://tfn.org/religiousright/
The most frightening examples of this ultimate ultra-conservative Christianity is Christian Reconstructionism who I like to think more of as Christian Talbian:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstruc
http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manu
Anyone who under-estimates these powerful polictical forces and their re-making of the Republican party is being hoodwinked.
Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
1) The exception rather than the norm,
2) Highly publicized and criticized, and
3) Self-corrected.
Case in point: Fred Phelps, the pastor of Westboro Church and the publicizer of the repulsive slogan "God Hates Fags" has been publicly debated and repudiated by ... evangelical Christians.
Rev. Paul Hill, one of a handful of abortion doctor murderers, was defrocked by his denomination.
What I'm saying is that the superficial similarity between those incidents and the incidents that occur on a regular basis under the Taliban, with support of the mainstream religious community, is exactly that: superficial.
American Christians, on the whole, do not tolerate our nutjob extremists; Muslim communities in Afghan, Pakistan, Saudi, and Iran lionize them. That is a significant difference.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Original republicans would have believed that the right to be personally free from coercion and compulsion is paramount, that that is the very definition of liberty. The conservatives believe that's man's nature as a child of God is paramount, and that liberty is actually restricting personal freedom in favour of encouraging religious adherance.
Actually this sounds more like a Liberal Democrat Republican. Liberals like Thomas Jefferson, a Democrat Republican, believed in Liberty and small government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The term Fundamentalism" has a historical meaning that is much more limited than you are using it here. That's not an argument against your points; it's just a clarification.
Theonomy is a minority view within the Reformed tradition, represented by a few authors (Google for Rousas Rushdoony or Gary North). The vast *vast* majority of Reformed churches believe in some form of separation of Church and State. Every major Reformed seminary teaches against theonomy.
Baptists are even more definite about separation of Church and State; "Bible" churches tend to follow their lead.
Ironically, the denominations that tend to mix church and state most frequently are ... liberal ones. Think here about the political prominence of Rev. Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton. Think also of the political involvement of mainstream denominations in the issues of slavery (good involvement!) and Prohibition (bad involvement!).
My point is that Christian Reconstructionism, which would indeed be scary if it were actually implemented, is rejected by most conservative Christians.
I don't know what church you used to attend, but I'm sorry that it didn't work out for you. You would probably like mine.
Interesting historical link on conservative Christians and Prohibition
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Most Christians tend to be conservative though, because we believe in the right to life. So when given a choice between a liberal and a conservative, it isn't very surprising that the conservative, who also happens to be Republican, is chosen by more Christians.
I'd bet if you took a poll or survey most of those who support the death penality call themselves Christian forgetting Christ supposedly said to turn the cheek and for those without sin to cast the first stone or some such. Didn't he also say to give Caesar his due?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Republicans are the party of life? What utter bullshit!
I think you meant right to birth, not right to life. After a baby is born, it's everyone for themselves as far as the GOP are concerned. Take a look at the surprisingly high infant mortality rate in the U.S. and Republicans stance on health care before you make proclomations about how deeply they value life.
Also, isn't it funny how Democrats are the ones who advocate programs that will result in fewer abortions such as easier access to birth control and *accurate* sex education?
This is all without mentioning the death penalty or any war on terror related carnage, especially the GOP's cavalier attitude about our soldiers' lives (botched planning, too few troops, inadequate equipment, cutting veterans' benefits).
It sounds like you've bought into the spin and been suckered by one-issue advocacy. Sure, most Republicans want to outlaw abortion, but if you think they give a shit about life after birth, you're kidding yourself. You may want to ask yourself which party is more imbued with the christian spirit and which only pays lip service.
No, people can be trusted. You just have to know whom to trust and eliminate everyone else. You trust your friends and are probably willing to stand up for them. You don't trust strangers until they become part of the group 'friends' and should thus be eliminating them, either incorporating them into the Group, or by killing them. It's as simple as that.
And, we should go onwards into the future, making battle, until the best Group wins:)
hmm, right to life on one hand. executions and war on the other. not hypocritical at all.
What I'm saying is that the superficial similarity between those incidents and the incidents that occur on a regular basis under the Taliban, with support of the mainstream religious community, is exactly that: superficial.
Hey guess who supported the Taliban and gave them millions of taxpayer dollars to them?...
The current occupier of the Whitehouse, President Bush. Even as they were blowing up historically and culturally significant monuments and executing people in a soccer stadium.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm a Republican and I know Bush lied. I do not want our party to be lead by a liar who gets thousands of people killed and nor should you.
Yet it was the Christian voters that reelected Bush.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You may want to ask yourself which party is more imbued with the christian spirit and which only pays lip service.
I don't care which party talks about the "christian spirit" and which embodies it, what I care about is that none of them try to force their beliefs down my throat or to live the way they say to live. Live and let live.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Who cares? Please recall that the FBI went to the American Muslim Council (also known as the American chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club) to vet those Muslim translator/contractors the military used. Not that I'm a present day fan of the "I'm killing those innocents in the name of national security" defense establishment.
Republicans are about fiscal responsibility. Self reliance. Smaller government. Well, they used to be at least.
The key part being "they used to be at least". Then again so was the Democrat party, er Democrat Republican Party. And that was what a Liberal was, someone who believed in Liberty and small government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
There is no proof, at all, of the administration lying about anything.
If you want to debate the concept of potentially bad intellegence reports, thats fine. However there are no facts that support the case for 'lies'. Personally i dont think the reports were bad either, that things changed *after* the reports were made.. but at least that topic would be a valid discussion.
Sorry to dissapoint you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Then let's just give it up and allow the dictatorship to take place. We'll all still live and be safer. After all, China, N. Korea and Cuba don't have any terrorism problems, and people live there and probably feel protected by their government, the way you want to feel. Why prolong the charade.
Most Christians tend to be conservative though, because we believe in the right to life.
Uh, "conservativism", upon which the Republican party is supposedly based (although the Libertarians moreso), is an economic philosophy that says the free market should be kept free and it will benefit everyone that way. It has absolutely nothing to say about the "right to life".
Now, since an economic philosophy isn't a complete basis for a political party, the parties also latch onto various other issues, and the Republican party has chosen the "right to life" as one of theirs. That's not because they're conservative, it's probably because the Democrats chose to champion abortion (liberals fighting for a woman's rights), and they have to make sure they always disagree with each other. The Libertarians, also conservative, believe in absolute minimal government and maximum personal freedom, so they would say that the government has no business telling a woman she can't get an abortion.
So do you really choose a party based on a single issue, or are you just oversimplifying for the sake of a short post? Personally, I think the president seems like he gives no more than lip service to true Christianity. While he talks about it a lot, he doesn't seem to practice any of the basic tenents. Christ taught a lot about compassion and forgiveness. As someone else said, "turn the other cheek", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "love thy neighbor". Man is to be kind, judgement is in the hands of God. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have any fine print. To kill an evil man is murder in the eyes of God, same as to kill an innocent man. So with all of that, why did we invade two countries to "kill the terrorists", simply because they slapped our cheek? There's also a lot in Christ's teachings about humility. Only God is perfect, man will make mistakes. The president doesn't admit mistakes, ever. He is Right, everyone else be damned.
So do you really believe that President Bush and the Republican party are representing Christianity?
As for abortion, I can sum up my views. I believe that the rights of the mother to control her own body outweight the rights of an embryo that will become a human. I think that the goverment telling someone what they can do inside their own body is seriously wrong, and is just about the most extreme example of denying someone's freedom. To the "culture of life", I believe that the harm done by killing a foetus that cannot live on its own is nowhere near the harm done by bringing an unwanted child into the world. The Republicans talk about how important it is to have a traditional family, yet they would deny women the opportunity to not have a baby if they can't provide for it. I also believe that outlawing abortion is almost useless as a practical matter. Most women will easily go to Canada or Mexico or anywhere else in the world for a legal abortion. They can also stay here and get a grey-market abortion from a doctor who doesn't agree with you, and can easily make up an excuse for it. They can also turn to alternative techniques, various pills and activities and the classic coat-hanger, which will do a lot of harm to living women while still killing the embryos. So, basically, I don't think outlawing abortion is a good idea.
I used to be in favor of the death penalty, but thinking about how the Republican "culture of life" still includes killing people, I actually realized that the death penalty is a bad thing. I try to be open-minded, and this is an example of how I changed my views on something significant. Killing undesireables has historically far too often been used as a tool by the government to suppress opposition. In this country we have a basic right to disagree with the government, so it seems appropriate to deny them that tool. We also have cases, especially as forensic science advances, where long-convicted inmates get exhonerated by new evidence. You can't free someone you've already killed, no matter how sorry you are. Finally, again a practical matter, the appeals process means that it costs more to kill someone than it does to hold them for life. Why waste the money?
So, I hope you're still around and willing to discuss. I'd like to hear your views on any of this.
Just to put things in perspective, a lot more of us will be able to live if personal vehicles were outlawed, than if terrorism were extinct.
We can all use public transportation after all, it's a minor inconvenience for the safety of avoiding the very common car accidents. The kind of tradeoffs we've been doing.
I'm sadden that people can so easily lose track of the picture and get so riled up on terrorism (not to mention attacking this problem in an unsolvable way), when we have plenty of other "unexpected death" sources to deal with, of our own.
That's the peril of global politics ... if you give money for "humanitarian aid" to a country ruled by thugs, the money usually goes to the thugs. If you don't give money, you're accused of being a self-centered, greedy nation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Every political party is an attempt to ram ideas down someone else's throat. Think about it: you find like-minded people, organize with them, and attempt to influence enough other people so that you have a majority. Then your issue wins -- and the minority has to eat sour grapes.
I know the political climate these days doesn't support it at all, but have you ever heard of compromise? Perhaps small government that doesn't ram anything down anyone's throat? Remember the days when we tried to build consensus, instead of saying, "Ha-ha. We have 51% of the vote, so we're going to get 100% of the policy and you can go screw yourself. We might inform you of when we are meeting, if you feel the need to show up for the cameras, but we aren't going to listen to you and we will win the vote no matter what you do."
I notice that a week ago everyone, including the Republicans, were asking for a "consensus candidate" for the Supreme Court. When the president chose someone well to the right of "consensus", he got nothing but praise from the Republicans. Where is the vaunted Republican integrity, where they would say, "We're very angry, Mr. President, that you ignored the will of the party and all the advice we gave you. We will vote for your candidate, but we aren't happy about your choice."
Democracy was based on the idea that all people would have a voice in government, not just the majority party. It's based on the principle that we can get together and determine a solution that everyone can agree to, and not have to impose our will on somebody else's freedom. Now, sometimes compromise is not the best solution, and a good leader will do the right thing even if it isn't popular. However, he takes a serious risk that he knows what is right for everyone else better than they do. Those who agree with him call it "strong leadership", those who disagree call it "stubborn pig-headedness". A sign of a good leader is knowing when to stay the course and when to bow to outside pressue. In our current leadership I see a whole lot of the former and almost none of the latter.
Christians in this country are very well-off. They have almost everything they could ever want, so they don't have to make huge sacrifices to meet basic minimal standards. In Israel we have a lot of good Jews doing a lot of appalling things because they feel their way of life is at risk. In some Muslim states there are people doing terrible things because they don't have the basic standard of living that we do. They also do some things you might disagree with, like the veils you mention, in keeping with the Word of God. I think your view of life in a Muslim nation is pretty twisted. It's about as accurate as saying that GTA:San Andreas is an accurate portrayal of life in Los Angeles. Most of the people there are just decent, God-fearing people who want to live a simple life in peace.
It takes an interesting viewpoint to say that veils are an evil of the Muslim world when American Christians are trying to deny women (even non-Christians) the ability to have an abortion, and are trying to prevent homosexuals from living the American Dream.
I don't have any problem with Christians. I find them to be very kind, generous, good people. A little creepy, but in a good way. I have a huge problem with a lot of the people who claim to be Christian these days, but who obviously don't really believe in the techings.
I find it interesting that in this case, religion is being defined by a single belief - the belief taht abortions are wrong. That's a very myopic view of religion
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Think of how much screening they must have done to find a contractor who would do their bidding without raising a stink!
I trust the US Military with my security (We could argue about the military and privacy all day so lets not bring that up), but why is our security being contacted out? That is what worries me. Where is the accountability???
Because there's a big push to privatize our security and the military. An example is Blackwater USA. They got some big contracts in Iraq. These contractors got their gravy train and they're not about to give them up.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They don't care. They don't have to. They're the US Government!
Government is supposedly accountable so they contract work out then they can say they didn't do it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How about this:
The Wave or The Wave
To explain to his students the atmosphere in the 1930's Nazi-Germany, history teacher Burt Ross initiates a daring experiment. He declares himself leader of a new movement, called 'The Wave'. Inspired, he proclaims ideas about Power, Discipline and Superiority. His students are strikingly willing to follow him. Soon the entire school is under the spell of 'The Wave'. Anyone who refuses to be a part of the Movement, faces threats or worse. Ross himself gets carried away by his own experiment. Or has it turned into something more than an experiment? A climax is unavoidable, resulting in a hard lesson for both Ross and his students...
FalconShould there be a Law?
- A number of admins employees have come forward and said that GWB was out to get Sadaam. And they said that he did not care if data was made up or not.
- GWB "fires" tenent for "incompetence". But then awards him the medal of freedom (as well as helps him find jobs later). Normally, the award goes to those that have done a great honor for America. What did Tenet do that GWB felt obliged?
- His admin has a gag order on sibel edmunds. It is claimed that she has proof of huge amounts of corruption of this admin (and apparently a number of congressmen).
- The Presidents chief of staff, and the vice-presidents chief of staff are implicated in outting a CIA agent. The fact that they did this together would indicate a conspiracy, that went up to a higher level.
I could go on, but why? The last one alone is enough evidence of lies. As it is, I look forward to what Ms. Edmunds has. I am guessing that it is enough evidence to destroy the current admin (hopefully, to put the whole lot in prison, but even better would be execution for the traitors that they are). That would probably explain why the last appeal went to a very conservative court.I found an easy solution. I don't read Slashdot, ever again, and I don't have to put up with Bush bashing and all sorts of BS! It's been greating knowing Slashdot, but goodbye!
Scott Simontis
" American Christians do not issue fatwas on their opponents." :)
.
Well duh. A Fatwah is a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar[WordNet]. Aren't a lot if Islamic scholars among American Christians
Perhaps you were overgeneralizing and are really refering to a few specific Fatwahs which were issued to justify a death sentence against Rushdi or the one's Al Qaeda have issued to justify there actions. They were issued by extemists and its debatable if they really confrom to Islamic law. Whatever they are pretty exceptional.
American Christian's don't quite do Fatwas because their isn't nearly as much Christian law as their is Islamic law, especially once you get past the ten commandments.
But Christians do most assuredly exact revenge on opponents, launch Jihads and kill the enemies of their faith. Thats petty much what the Crusades were multiple times, over hundreds of years. Crusaders did round up, slaught and brutalize people for their faith. Christians over the centuries have done it just as much as any religion.
I'd be inclined to say the Bush administration basicly issued a Fatwah against Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega and when the U.S. issues a Fatwah it has the weapons to make it stick.
I'd say all the multimillion dollar rewards for the capture of terrorist like Bin Laden are pretty much modern Fatwah's backed by cash, just like the one issued against Rushdi. For some reason the Fatwah against Bin Laden and his right hand man hasn't worked. I wonder why that is?
I'd say the semi secret Rendition program is an exceptionally good Fatwah program. The Christians in Washington identify a potential Muslim enemy anywhere in the world, and they are all Muslim. a jet with a team of masked men sweep in, snatch him and send him to be tortured for his sins. Same...Same.
"They don't force women to wear veils"
Well it sure is a common practice at Christian weddings. Granted its over the top when women are forced to wear veils, especially burka class, but dude that is part of culture. Most cultures and religions have quirky traits that have been there for centuries to millenia. It obviously ticks you off because you want everyone else to adopt your cultural standards, but some people find American cultural standards offensive too. You can't really get all holier than thou about women's rights. Women have had rights in the U.S. for a VERY brief period by historical standards. I'm sure you want to force this very new standard on the world very fast because American's tend to be in a hurry, just beware cultures that have been around for a thousand years or more may not appreciate you trying to inflict your very new culture on them overnight. The U.S. tried it in Iraq. What did you do. You took Iraq from a secular dictator where women had more rights than in most Muslim countries, didn't wear burkha, had careers, and turned it over to a Shia majority which is as we speak is writing a consitution based on Islamic law and are MAKING women wear veils when the didn't have to under Saddam. I gather Basra, the Shia heartland is starting to resemble Afghanistan under the Taliban.
"don't carry out suicide bombings for the sake of their cause."
They don't have to, they have F-16's and Apache helicopers to drop the bombs without the suicide part. Suicide bombings are the last resort of desperate people, sometimes brainwashed but not always, who are severely outgunned, mostly by the U.S. and Israel. Affluent American Christians are fat, happy and in power. You don't get suicide bombers from that demographic. If American Christians were run out of their homes at the end of gun, pushed in to refugee camps in grinding poverty, had what homes they have bulldozed, spat on and killed by occupying soldiers, they would be suicide bomber too. Please stop the holier than thou crap. Its easy to be sanctimonious when you are rich, well fed and powerful.
@de_machina
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Learn English. It's the "Democratic Party".
If we should be profiling those that commit more crimes, we should be nailing every Mexican and black person that we see because they fit nicely into a profile.
Young black man in Oakland driving a car that was made within the past 5 years = fits the profile of a drug dealer.
If we all thought the way you propose (I'd rather harrass an innocent person that fits a profile..) then we'd be searching nearly everyone.
"There are many Middle Eastern countries which have fundalmentalist leaders who also consider themselves the 'Party of God.'"
You're quite literally right. See this wikipedia article on Hezbollah for details.
(Free hint for those too lazy to click on the f-ing link: 'Hezbollah' means 'Party of God'.)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Unless I am the one group that they don't come after.
+++
My new Home
Looks like somoene needs to see this.
:)
At least someone got it. I didn't get my +4 Funny for nothin'.
--
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!
bork bork bork!
Nor do I condone all of the actions of the Church, however broadly that may be defined.
Having said that, I really have trouble with your logic. First, a fatwa is the pronouncement of a religious court. The Bush Administration has no more authority to issue fatwa's (or even a Christian version thereof) than Bill Gates does.
My point stands: American Christian churches do not issue fatwas (or Christian versions thereof) calling for the death of their opponents.
Now, if you want to object to some U.S. governmental policy of killing people without a trial, then fine: I'll support you in that. But don't blame it on some cabal of "Washington Christians", as if some church put out a hit list. That's tin-foil-hat material.
Second, it is true that Christians have, and in some cases still do, exact revenge against their opponents. However, it is also the case that when they do, they are acting in direct opposition to the tenets of their religion. See for example Romans 12:17-20. The same is *not* true of Islam, which gets mixed signals from the Koran (2.177 - 193, e.g.).
Third, your point about the veils is bizarre. No one has *ever* said to *anyone* in a wedding "you must wear a veil." My wife wore one -- her choice, mind you -- because she thought it was pretty.
Fourth: the "holier-than-thou" stuff is just name-calling. There has to be some way for reasonable people to respond to claims. The claim was made that conservative Christians are just the same as the Taliban. I rejected the claim and provided evidence. If that makes me "holier-than-thou", then I guess there's a lot of that going around. It's easy to be judgmental about America when you don't live here.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Based on your comment, I think you are referring to Groupthink, the unique behavioural trait that sometimes expresses itself whenever otherwise rational people get together in a group, whereupon they make decisions that they wouldn't accept individually.
Some commentators suggest that it is due to a dissociation of responsibility and guilt, e.g. 'I wasn't the only one who backed it.'
Good leadership (even mediocre leadership) should be able to identify this pattern, and stop it. The problem, especially when dealing with Government agencies, or contracted Government work, is that the mediocre tend to rise to the top, as the talented leave at the lower levels, and the people in the positions of responsibility are not adequately equipped to carry out those duties, or accept that responsibility. It's easy when you are only in a position for five years, and the negative effects won't be seen for fifteen.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
Rev Falwell, Rev Robertson, Rev Phelps.
The Catholic Church.
"However, it is also the case that when they do, they are acting in direct opposition to the tenets of their religion. See for example Romans 12:17-20. The same is *not* true of Islam, which gets mixed signals from the Koran (2.177 - 193, e.g.)."
Why yes it is mostly against the teaching of Christ but the bible as a whole gives just as much a mixed message as the Koran does. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. military is massively Christian, the Air Force Academy has developed a rep for a fanatical cadre of born agains who try to convert or hound out anyone who hasn't found Jesus. Once the graduate they will no doubt go on to kill people with abandon from on high and in Jesus' name. Many Christian churches have been pro war and pro killing thoughout American history. The U.S. prays as it kills people in wars just as much as Muslims and Jews do. There are very few Christian sects who in fact practice non violence, like the Quakers and Amish. Some main stream churches are pro war to the point of being bloody thirsty.
"Third, your point about the veils is bizarre. No one has *ever* said to *anyone* in a wedding "you must wear a veil." My wife wore one -- her choice, mind you -- because she thought it was pretty"
You missed the point, it is a cultural tradition to wear a veil at Christian weddings, its a cultural tradition and Islamic doctrine for women to cover their heads if not their entire head all the time. Christian nuns cover their heads too. The point is if you have this uncontrollable urge to inflict your cultural biases on other cultures, I'm of the opinion they should be able to tell you to not do things that offend them. For example how would Americans feel if Muslim countries forced Americans to stop consuming alcohol. They have a good case for that, alcohol is a devestatingly bad drug, they are on the right side of the issue. If you want to tell them what women can and can't wear is it OK if they tell you what you can and can't do?
"But don't blame it on some cabal of "Washington Christians"
Dude you aren't paying attention. There IS a cabal of "Washington Christians" along with some "Washington Jews" and they are killing, disappearing and torturing people with abandon, all of whom happen to be Muslim.
A bizarre example covered in New Yorker recently is Patrick Henry College. It was founded in 2000 when the Republicans swept in to power. Its student body is entirely home schooled Christians, people who have never been corrupted by contact with the public education system, or heathens. Their entire student body is actively working in Republican political campaigns and they all get fast tracks to internships in top spots in the Federal government including the White House and Karl Roves office, and leading conservative think tanks. They ARE a "Washington Chrisitan Cabal" being groomed to reign over America from now to eternity, or at least until the rapture takes them all to Jesus.
"The claim was made that conservative Christians are just the same as the Taliban."
"Just the same" is a stretch but there is a lot of disturbing" similarity which is why people keep drawing the parallel. Born again Christians are hell bent on trying to inflict their world view on people who don't like or want their world view. They don't approve of abortion so they want to force women to ride out unwanted pregnancies and raise unwanted kids who have a propensity to turn in to criminals, or put a new wave of kids in to foster care, orphanages and adoption. They don't approve of homosexuality so they want to drive people who are unavoidably gay back in to the closet if not out of society. The whole problem here is when some Muslim country tries to force their ideaology on people you get your panties in a twist. When American Christians do the same thing you rationalize and turn a blind eye becuase you wear cultural blinders, your culture always good, everyone elses culture always bad (unless of course they make it exactly like yours).
Bottomline learn to live and let live. Forgive and forget. Don't pass judgement on others. That is a world view Christ would have approved of.
@de_machina
Sure, Jesus made a statement about you "turning the other cheek"
But in Luke 22:35-38, he also tells his disciples to get swords, even if they had to sell their mantle(cloak or outer robe) to get one.
So self-defense is considered necessary, at times.
Thus, carrying an arm and defending yourself, while not, perhaps, the highest path, is still not an evil path. Personally, I feel that I'm carrying my weapon not just to defend myself, but so I can be more prepared to defend others as well.
Giving Caesar his due could be an early form of seperation of church and state.
The cast the first stone was more along the lines of 'vigilante justice' even for the time. Way out of line.
I don't read AC A human right
"As privacy is not a "liberty," and is not named anywhere in the Constitution, it seems a little privacy is expendable for a lot of security."
with all the posts about how the consitution does not fucking list every right, and how the founding fathers did not even think it was necesary to list SOME of them in the amendments, its amazing even to this day people still bring up the goddam "it's not in Constitution so it's not a right" argument. RTFC (...Constitution) people!
Misdirection.
Privacy cannot logically be a right because it is not an act. It is ignorance of others. It may or may not be wise to promote privacy. But it is not an action that could conceivably be banned -- unlike trade, gunsmanshp, speech, assembly, &c.
-Dan tdaxp
In response to your query about 'if ... leadership can be effective once [groupthink] has become prevalent ...', then the short answer is no.
Long answer, not exactly.
Once Groupthink has become entrenched, it requires a leader with a very high ability to mix the charisma, logic, and personality required in order to sway the mindset of the group.
If the leader is respected, then their dissenting opinion should carry more weight than a dissension from within the group. Once the respect is lost, then the group takes control, and the dissension from the leader is ignored.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
This nation was started with a religious belief in tolerance.
I suspect you meant to write "belief in religious tolerance". Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but I'd say tolerance has been observed more sporadically than religiously...
Blank until
There's already a campaign in the UK to try to prevent systems of this order being set up. I recommend signing up for it if you're interested in preventing an inept government stranglehold on the very concept of identity. Or if you don't fancy paying £90 for a completely useless piece of plastic.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
It should disturb you that your impression of Christians is entirely second-hand. Do think maybe just possibly that publications like CNN and the New Yorker have an interest in putting Christians in a bad light?
You would do better to spend some time here and find out what Christians really think. Then you might be in a position to follow your own advice about passing judgment on others.
The truth is that the Christian community is highly heterogenous. Some within the Christian community are homophobic; others are not. I'm not. I've been sought out by two of my students who wanted to discuss their struggles with sexual identity. But funny thing, some nonChristians are homophobic and some are not. Assigning homophobia to Christianity as a defining trait is, ironically enough, bigotry.
The United States government is even more heterogeneous. Are you disturbed about Patrick Henry interns working in Washington? Wait until 2008. Bush and Rove will be out of power; someone else will be in.
The United States is far too large of a country to be painted with a brush of a single color.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
It's also human arrogance of the highest order to presume that if there is a God, s/he would be the slightest bit interested in party politics.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Most Christians don't vote on only one issue. This is why there are so many Roman Catholics in the Democratic party.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"the Air Force Academy story is straight out of CNN"
Very weak argument, well no argument at all. Does it have to be on Fox for you to give it creedance. Thought so....
In this case I watched CSPAN and the congressional hearing where the Air Force General sent to inspect the incidents and white wash them attempted to brush it under the rug. He didn't do a very good job on the whitewashing part. Some of the cadet and faculty practices described in the hearing and which are admitted as facts are DEEPLY disturbing. Cadets have every right to practice their faith to the hilt, they have no right to try to force others to adopt it or ostracize and discriminate against those who don't, in particular Jews, agnostics and athiests or in fact even religious people who aren't "born again". That is not what this country is about and our Constitution forbids injecting your religious bias in to government institutions.
"Your Patrick Henry College story is out of the *New Yorker*, for crying out loud."
Dude the messenger doesn't change the facts and the fact is on the outskirts of Washington, there is a new College founded in 2000 that its exclusively for home schooled Christians being groomed for leadership positions in the New Washington. I doubt the right wing Christians want to advertise they are giving preferential treatement to its students for government and policy jobs, and in fact they apparently even discriminating against good Christians tainted by public schools.
Why don't you try making a coherent argement instead of just saying, gee that was in the news, therefor lets dismiss it.
"The truth is that the Christian community is highly heterogenous"
Dude I love Christians who practices the teachings of Christ. The right wing fundementalists and born agains who've siezed control of the Repulican party and the U.S. governments are unfortunatley very homogenous and uniform in their doctrine. Most are homophobes, thats how they won the last election by playing the homophobia over gay marriage to the hilt. Most are anti abortion, some aren't, but it is obviously the dominiant view of the Republican base now. Their only problem is if they ever overturn Roe V. Wade there will be a mass exodus of women back to the Democrats because a lot of women voting Republican lately don't want to be force to have an unwanted baby.
" Bush and Rove will be out of power; someone else will be in."
Yea but its not likely they will be any better and may well be worse. The Christian right is a cohesive and mobilized block. The Democrats are in collapse, there is no viable third party. The Republicans control all branches of government or soon will once they stack the Supreme court. Once a party establishes that kind of power and control of the national the message it is very hard to unseat them. Look how long the Democrats held power and they completely sucked for the duration.
"The United States is far too large of a country to be painted with a brush of a single color."
Not painting it a single color. It is pretty obviously more or less two colors, the blue shrinking, the red drowning the nation.
@de_machina
I seem to recall God's next instruction after "here's ten rules to follow" was "go over that hill and kill everyone you find..."
Mixing Christianity with politics is more about claiming the moral high ground to backup the policies than creating policies on the basis of those morals.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I find it interesting that in this case, religion is being defined by a single belief - the belief taht abortions are wrong. That's a very myopic view of religion
Christians went to bed with the Republican dogs, and traded away their morals for this. Aside from their fleas, it's all they have left.
The best part? It'll never happen! As long as there is abortion, the Republicans will continue to convince Christians that they should vote for them. As soon as abortion is gone, the Christians will see straight through the fake "compassionate conservative" veneer and march the other way.
No, your beliefs are not flawed, IMHO. You're self-consistent. Try this phrase on for size: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
I'm tolerant of religions, so long as they don't harm anyone, especially someone who hasn't agreed to be part of the religion. Human sacrifices and people blowing themselves up in public places in the name of "god" fail this test.
BEGIN aside
I'm glad you got the Air Force story from CSPAN instead of CNN. I listen to a lot of CSPAN radio because it's a lot of raw data instead of opinion.
Sources matter; that's why I jumped on the New Yorker article. The New Yorker is not, and does not pretend to be, a magazine of record. It is an opinion mag. As such, any article in it is going to present only those facts that bolster the case of the op-ed writer.
Fact: Patrick Henry College is outside of Washington D.C.
Context: About 100 colleges are in or outside of Washington D.C.
Fact: Patrick Henry College accepts mostly home-schoolers.
Context: Patrick Henry College uses a model of education called "Classical Education", similar to St. John's College. The largest group of "classically" trained students happens to be home-schoolers.
Fact: PHC states that its mission is to train "Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding."
Context: there are all sorts of public policy schools out there. The Woodrow Wilson school at Princeton comes to mind. Googling for "public policy school" gives another 20 examples.
When you put those facts in context, it turns out that PHC (of which I'm no particular fan) is simply one more of the multitude of voices in America. It is by no means some kind of "Dumbledore's Army" (if you happen to have read Harry Potter).
END aside
Your post brings us back to the main point: Is the "Christian Right" parallel to the Taliban?
You say Yes, and argue that the Christian Right wants to force others to accept their point of view, which is a religious one; so do the Taliban; therefore, the two are parallel.
I say No. Wanting to implement one's point of view is inherent and legitimate within a democratic society.
Consider: The environmental lobby has an agenda. They want cars and power plants to stop polluting the atmosphere. They want to stop or slow urban sprawl so that habitats will be preserved. That agenda affects the rest of us. It lowers our property values; it restricts our freedom to use our own property the way that we want. It can even make us liable, after the fact, for industrial waste cleanup on chemicals that were government-approved at the time of release. All manner of seeming injustices are proposed by environmentalists.
But wait ... it's worse. Some environmentalists are "eco-terrorists", who maliciously harm others and wreck equipment in order to save spotted owls. AND, environmentalists EVEN HAVE THEIR OWN AGENCY IN THE GOVERNMENT -- the EPA. Furthermore, some environmentalists go so far as to worship "Gaia", Mother Earth.
So are the environmentalists just like the Taliban?
Nonsense. They are people with an agenda who operate, by-and-large, within the framework of a democratic society. They are a legitimate voice in our society.
So it is with the Christian Right. They have an agenda, absolutely. Much of that agenda is fueled by their religious beliefs. But, they pursue that agenda within the context of a democratic society. When American Christians lose elections, they do the same thing all other Americans do: they wait for the next election and plan to win. They use the legislative and judicial processes, as convoluted as those are, to accomplish their agenda. When ruled against by the Supreme Court, they abide by the Court's decision, by-and-large, and try to do what all other Americans do: bring the Court around to their own point of view. That's not some "co
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Being a christian myself, I believe in the right to life, but that doesn't mean that i have the right to tell other people how to behave and act...
If you are a christian you might think that you have an obligation to tell people how abortion is wrong.. . and you are right but that's where your obligation ends... you HAVE to let people make up their own minds...
God doesn't want people who are forced to obey him, he wants you to make a choice, that's why there is no "proof" that he exists.
If you want to follow a "God" who forces his subjects to obey him, maybe you should talk to Anton Le Vey (um wait i think he's dead now).
Anyhow just some stuff to think about, not a direct criticism of the parent.
"I'm glad you got the Air Force story from CSPAN instead of CNN. I listen to a lot of CSPAN radio because it's a lot of raw data instead of opinion."
Nice, I provide an authoritative source, you compliment me and completely duck the fact that born agains are trying to convert or drive everyont out of the U.S. Air Force officer corp anyone who doesn't think like them. Got to love people who claim to be devout Christians training for a profession in which they will be called upon to kill people, often innocent people, in large numbers. Personally I don't want people waiting for apocolypse and the rapture to have their finger on buttons that drop nuclear weapons.
" "Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding."
Dude you proved my whole point right here. That statement is totally scary. Wouldn't be if they were just a christian zealot school with no chance of doing it, but THIS school's students are being groomed by the Republican's to take over, and being given red carpet treatment to internships and jobs in the Federal government to get the ball rolling.
As for the rest of your rant there is one simple fact you gloss over. A basic tenent of our society and government is seperation of church and state. Injecting religion in to government is completely different than injecting issues, like the environment, in to government.
Many of the founding fathers, and a LOT of America's early colonists fled religious persecution in Europe. They knew exactly how bad it was when religion is injected in to government. The sect in power, almost inevitably persecutes and discriminates against sects of which they don't approve. The Founding fathers did their best to severe direct ties between church and state for a reason, today it seems they failed.
When you have state endorsed religion you have an invitation to disaster. Why because religions have an horrendous tendancy for sectarianism. People turn rabid on what is correct religious doctrine and practice and what is blasphemy. As soon as you let religion in the door at a government level the government goes down a road where it will start endorsing acceptable sects and persecuting unacceptable sects. Right now Christianity and Judaism in, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist out. Down the road you can see Protestant in, Catholic out. What next, you have to be "born again" or you are an abomination.
Its also equally bad for religions to let government intrude in to them, and start exerting control over them which is the double edged sword of Bush's faith based initiative. In exchange for lots of our tax dollars they get government auditors and regulators, and are supposed to be precluded from prosletyzing when they are spending government money. The government also picks demonitations who get money and those who don't. BAD...BAD...BAD.
Seperation of church and state is just fundementally good government. The people in power now completely fail to understand that or why which is why they are SO dangerous. Yes they should pray, yes they can use the word God when they speak if they choose, but when it comes time to make policy and laws they should check their religion at the door.
" That is their right, and it is a legitimate action in a democratic society."
Yes it is except when the extremists assassinate abortion doctors, bomb clinics and block access to something that is legal. You see there are extremists among Christians and Jews just like there are extremists among Muslims. You choose to focus on all the Christian moderates and the Muslim extremists. 99% of Muslims are moderate too. You are just so massively biased you don't recognize that all religions have extremists, and they are all bad.
Whatever methods they are using anti abortion fanatics have driven abortion clinics out of some states and down to one in an entire state in others. Through their action they are managing to mak
@de_machina
Inversely, American Christians are not characterized by the 1% (or whatever size) of extremists in their midst; they are normal people who are Christian. It is simply ludicrous to equate American Christians, even "conservative" ones, with the Taliban. Furthermore, Christians have a right to participate in government, just like any other American. If their ideas are unacceptable to you, then vote against them.
My argument has nothing to do with the morality of invading Afghanistan or Iraq; nor does it have to with the rightness or wrongness of pro-life activists.
My argument is, and has been, one basic point: American Christian != Taliban.
You have provided no good argument to the contrary.
You've laid a lot of crimes at the door of the US government. I might agree with you on some of those charges, but they aren't pertinent to the argument -- so I'm not going to discuss them. They are the actions of the US government, not of churches.
You've been weirded out by a college (Patrick Henry) whose mission statement is grandiose but whose real influence is trivial...a couple of interns in Congressional offices.
You think it's a big deal that the Air Force has a large number of vocal Christians. News Flash: the hearing you saw was the Air Force being *reprimanded by the US congress and forced to reform* its practices to make them less sectarian. Furthermore, the type of harassment that was alleged was things on the order of commanding officers praying in public. Do you seriously want to argue that that's equivalent to throwing sulfuric acid in a woman's face because she's not wearing her veil?
You've provided no evidence that an "American Taliban" is running the government. Quite the contrary:
The United States bears no resemblance to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Here's the real deal: the Republican Party is, and has been since the late 19th century, the party of business. Follow the money ... Wall Street, and not the pulpit, is the true source of direction for them.
Republicans have attracted Christian votes only because Republicans are less "pro-choice" than Democrats. The Republicans are happy to take those votes, but they don't give much of substance in return for them.
I don't know why you feel it necessary to level such bigoted accusations against Christians, but they're way over-blown and simply untrue.
You would do much better to learn some American history and discover that the religious life of its citizens has *diminished*, not grown, over time. Christians have far less influence now than they had when the Constitution was written. Even so, America was not conceived then, nor is it now, a "Christian nation." It is a nation founded in principles derived in large part from Christian thought. Nothing more, nothing less.
Free advice: you would also do well to drop the inflamatory language. Terms like "holier-than-thou", "sanctimonious", and "rant" don't add to your arguments; they take away from them. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then argue your opponent's ideas, not his character. Google for "ad hominem."
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
"My argument is, and has been, one basic point: American Christian != Taliban." ...I dont know who you are arguing with. I never said they were equal. They are so different you couldn't even correlate them. The only point I made, quite rightly is they both seek to inject their personal, extreme, religious views in to government and in so doing inflict it on all the unfortunates who happen to live in their respective countries and don't share their religious fanaticism. Me I'm live and let live, if you want live a life consumed by your Christianity go for it, JUST DON'T FORCE IT ON ANYONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY ME.
I'll make it clear one more time, none of my verbal assault is aimed at all Christians, especially the Christians who actually understand and practice what Christ taught. The assault is aimed entirely at the right wing, white born agains who've seized control of the Republican party, the U.S. government and through its massive miliary of the entire world. They are execptionally dangerous and the don't seem to understand a single thing Christ taught or stood for.
The Republican party of today has next to nothing in common with the old Republican party. The Christian right mostly siezed control of it in 2000 and they solidified that control on 9/11 and further in 2004. They've turned it in to a radical right wing Christian party teetering on Fascist. The true conservative business types don't even recognize their party any more but they have no place to flee to. Republicans used to be fiscally responsible, anti foreign intervention, pro small government and against government intruding in peoples lives. The new radical Republican party is the antithesis of that.
As for your 4 points they aren't even worth rebutting, they are nonsense. You dredged up stuff that happened under Clinton for Christ's sake. That is ancient history now, try focusing on the realities post 2000 and post 9/11 because everythings changed.
"Christians have far less influence now than they had when the Constitution was written"
It was diminishing, again you are living in a now distant past. They are reasserting that influence now with a vengence. Its a great saw, our influence is so diminished, please look the other way while we sieze more power than we've ever had in history.
The point you keep missing is the founding fathers were for the most part devoutly Christian but they knew better than anyone that they didn't want their religion intruded in to secular government and vice versa. They forbad the government from meddling in religion, and they laid a framework in which religion had no role in secular government. Again it is sound government to keep the to separated. Anyone who doesn't grasp the wisdom in that seperation is either dangerous or dumb.
This is turning in to a total waste of time. Later. You can have the last word but I'm not reading it.
@de_machina
OK, then mind to explain why so many USian Chrisitians who are so vehemently against the right to chose are so fundamentally supporting the death penalty?
Bunch of fucking hypocrites, I dare say.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk